nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Strike For Repeal?

fatknacker

Anyone gonna? I've the day off anyway but I probably wouldn't have stroked if I hadn't, although I would like everyone to have abortions. Whoops, I mean, choice for abortions.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Surely providing access to abortion is, like any family planning service, a duty of welfare to less well-off people? If someone cannot afford to have a child, then surely not allowing them to access abortion is failing in your duty towards their welfare?
All the social supports in the world can't sort out the fringe elements who will simply sink deeper into poverty with the arrival of another child - them and their other children.

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.

Interestingly a study in the US found that women who campaigned against abortion were more likely to actually get an abortion than women who campaigned for it.

In any case denying access to abortion for one low-income person because they happen to be a member of a socioeconomic group that is traditionally against it, makes no sense really.

MightyMandarin

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

No, I am not in any position to provide any sort of plan as to how such a provision might be implemented; that's for the Govt. to do. It might seem like a cop-out, it probably is, but it's got nothing to do with the 8th Amendment imo.

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.

You might not think there is a coherent basis to afford an unborn person the same rights afforded to us, but I happen to think there is. Your comparison with bacteria and animals is ridiculous btw. I'm massively in favour of greater animal rights, but they have nothing to do with a debate on human life.

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.

Not the ones who want the 8th Amendment repealed anyway. Read the provision.

........... 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.

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.

Sorry, but your opinion is, well, an opinion. I'm sorry to say but there are esteemed scholars in various fields, even lecturers of mine, who share my opinion on this matter. There are facts at play obviously, but on the question of ethics and morals, it is only opinion. Stop thinking your opinion is fact.

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"........

Yeah, whatever, I don't need to CAPITALISE random words for dramatic effect, nor tell people that my opinion is essentially fact.

seamus

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm massively in favour of greater animal rights, but they have nothing to do with a debate on human life.

Why not? Why are you in favour of animal rights if not because you draw parallels between humans and animals?

Not the ones who want the 8th Amendment repealed anyway. Read the provision.

That's a complete misrepresentation, of course. Being in favour of repealing the eighth amendment doesn't allow you to make any assumption on that person's opinion of the rights of the unborn. Some fringe elements want to repeal it because it doesn't go far enough.

Sorry, but your opinion is, well, an opinion. I'm sorry to say but there are esteemed scholars in various fields, even lecturers of mine, who share my opinion on this matter. There are facts at play obviously, but on the question of ethics and morals, it is only opinion. Stop thinking your opinion is fact.
Yeah, whatever, I don't need to CAPITALISE random words for dramatic effect, nor tell people that my opinion is essentially fact.

Weren't you complaining just a few posts back about people being condescending and talking down to you?

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

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".

No, but you'll hear plenty of anti-religious rhetoric as peoples reasons for voting, when the issue is a civil matter and will have no effect on religious matters whatsoever.

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.

They are seamus, because of the way the law currently stands at the moment. That's why people who advocate for broadening our abortion laws are challenged on their views, not because they have any greater understanding of anything than anyone else. Some people are more open to their views being challenged than others, and some people would like nothing better than for everyone else to think the same way they do. I don't think either trait is exclusive to any point of view in this discussion. I have no doubt you've witnessed in previous threads on this issue how anyone who expresses anything other than a "pro-choice" perspective, was squarely rounded upon and not challenged, but hounded out of the "discussion". I didn't agree with their perspective, but I absolutely detest the way they were rounded upon and eventually left the discussion, meaning that there was never even an attempt to understand where they were coming from.

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.

Seamus honestly, that "I see I've triggered you" is a lame effort, second time I've seen it today and I really hope it doesn't become a common retort when someone simply disagrees with your point of view. The way people vote is up to themselves, as irritating and all as that might be for anyone else. There will be just as many on either side of a yes/no vote will use their vote in a way they think has some bearing on issues that are completely unrelated, but somehow that person has managed in their own head to relate them, somehow. There's nothing anyone can do about that except present their arguments, listen to feedback and opposition, and tailor their arguments accordingly, because sticking to a pre-scripted effort just shows they're not listening to anyone, but they want everyone to listen to them. That's not how a discussion with the hope of creating a greater understanding for everyone of the issues involved, actually works.

ricero

Ruined my commute home last night so i will be voting against them now

MightyMandarin

seamus wrote: »

Why not? Why are you in favour of animal rights if not because you draw parallels between humans and animals?

I feel it complicates an already-complicated matter, and although I regard the life of all animals highly, I can't help but view the life of a human with greater importance- as ****ty as that might sound.

That's a complete misrepresentation, of course. Being in favour of repealing the eighth amendment doesn't allow you to make any assumption on that person's opinion of the rights of the unborn. Some fringe elements want to repeal it because it doesn't go far enough.

It most certainly does. Article 40.3.3 now states:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

If someone tells me they want that provision removed, then I have every right to make that assumption. It would be of the utmost hypocrisy to want that provision repealed but still value the life of the unborn without the same value as us.

Weren't you complaining just a few posts back about people being condescending and talking down to you?

Yeah, because they were posting like an arsehole. Now I called them out on trying to value their opinion as fact. What's wrong with that?

MightyMandarin

ricero wrote: »

Ruined my commute home last night so i will be voting against them now

I'm sure they'll make sure to call off the next protest just so they don't cause 'dem commuters so much hassle that they vote against them...

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, but you'll hear plenty of anti-religious rhetoric as peoples reasons for voting, when the issue is a civil matter and will have no effect on religious matters whatsoever.

Agreed and disagreed. There will be anti-religious rhetoric, but to pretend that religion has no relevance to the discussion is just wilfuly ignoring the history of the amendment and the fact that virtually all pro-life organisations are religious or are bankrolled by religious groups.

I do feel sorry for people who genuinely oppose abortion but have no religious leanings, because they do automatically get assumed to be crazy bible thumpers.

I didn't agree with their perspective, but I absolutely detest the way they were rounded upon and eventually left the discussion, meaning that there was never even an attempt to understand where they were coming from.

Ultimately heated and mostly boolean discussions tend to have a tipping point where one side has the "upper hand", and that is where one side simply happens to have more people responding at the same time as the other.
The immigration thread is one such example - an echo chamber for anti-immigration because expressing a differing opinion results in 20 responses all at once. And yeah, I've seen the exact same thing happen with abortion threads.

The mistake made is calling it "hounding", and being annoyed, like there's an unseen conspiracy to shout down and drown out differing opinions. The thread happens to have more people in favour of one side than the other. It doesn't mean either side has "won" or "lost" and it doesn't mean that the "winning" side is engaging in oppression of the other.

That's a topic for a different thread though I think.

Seamus honestly, that "I see I've triggered you" is a lame effort, second time I've seen it today and I really hope it doesn't become a common retort when someone simply disagrees with your point of view.

No, only when someone has clearly become annoyed enough with my point of view to engage in a personal attack.

PopePalpatine

ricero wrote: »

Ruined my commute home last night so i will be voting against them now

...says the guy who's gloated about "LIBRUL TEARZ". I smell bullsh*t.

seamus

MightyMandarin wrote: »

If someone tells me they want that provision removed, then I have every right to make that assumption. It would be of the utmost hypocrisy to want that provision repealed but still value the life of the unborn without the same value as us.

No, it wouldn't?

There are many reasons to have the eighth amendment repealed. One may be because it forced the state to make abortion legal in certain circumstances. If you were absolutely opposed to abortion in all its form, you'd be right pissed about that one.

You do of course have every right to make an assumption, however wrong that assumption may be.

What's wrong with that?

Double standards. If you want to be taken seriously, you can't complain about being talked down to and then do the same thing yourself.

nozzferrahhtoo

MightyMandarin wrote: »

No, I am not in any position to provide any sort of plan as to how such a provision might be implemented; that's for the Govt. to do. It might seem like a cop-out, it probably is, but it's got nothing to do with the 8th Amendment imo.

I generally do not suspect people of copping out until I have had consistent experience of them doing it as a standard MO

I will certainly leave it as a point of concern that not being able to even think how it BASICALLY could work, should at least give you pause in your certainty THAT it should be implemented.

Since I am pro-choice I do not reject pro-choice arguments readily or happily. But I think mediating abortion access on rape is so unworkable as to be an argument very much worth rejection. I cringe when other pro-choice campaigners use it.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

You might not think there is a coherent basis to afford an unborn person the same rights afforded to us, but I happen to think there is. Your comparison with bacteria and animals is ridiculous btw. I'm massively in favour of greater animal rights, but they have nothing to do with a debate on human life.

Oh THAT you think there is is entirely clear. Unfortunately in the number of people I have met with similar views, THAT they think there is seems to be about as far as they get. Adumbrating the basis for WHY they think so...... never appears to happen. Which is why I expressed (very) minor umbrage at having my position described merely as opinion given that I do not merely assert the content of my position, I explain the basis and thinking behind it too. The people who are just opining are the ones who do not do so.

The comparison I made is not ridiculous either. Or at least if it is, it is not going to be established as thus merely by assertion that it is so with no qualifiers. But the purpose of the comparison is merely to show that what I was replying to does not hold up in isolation, there is clearly something more going on than you describe. When you express concern for something that would live on BUT for our intervention........ I merely point out that that is what we do ALL The time without such concern. So if there is concern HERE it must be for deeper reasons than the mere continuation of the life in question.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Not the ones who want the 8th Amendment repealed anyway. Read the provision.

I think you missed the point I was attempting to make. As with "cop outs" above I will simply assume this is my failing and not yours and will try again.

The point is that MOST pro-choice campaigners want SOME limit on abortion. Usually with numbers like 12 weeks, 16 weeks, 24 weeks. So clearly at SOME point they want the fetus to attain the right to life BEFORE it is born.

So to frame the entire debate in terms of merely "extending the rights to the unborn" misses the fact that, although to varying degrees, the majority of us are doing exactly that. The difference solely being HOW FAR before birth we extend them. Some extend it back to 12 weeks. Some back to conception. But pretty much all of us extend it to the unborn SOMEWHERE.

There are of course exceptions to that. I have seen.... I think just 3 now, there might be a 4th, posted on this forum alone who want abortion with NO limits. That is a woman could go in to request an abortion literally the day before she is due to give birth. But THANKFULLY they have not coherently supported such a position..... with one user supporting it with nothing but essentially saying "Oh but Hilary Clinton agrees with me". Which, even though I am not convinced she does, seems about as poor an argument as arguments get.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Sorry, but your opinion is, well, an opinion.

I never suggested otherwise. My opinions are, opinions. The issue is with calling things opinions that are facts. Opinions are opinions. Facts are facts. That you may be mixing up the two, in no way suggests I am doing so.

But one FACT (not opinion) is that every bit of science we have suggests a 12 week old fetus lacks ANY element of consciousness, sentience or subjective awareness.

Another FACT (not opinion) is that I can think of no OTHER entities in our world that entirely lack ANY element of consciousness, sentience or subjective awareness for which we hold moral or ethical concern as to their rights or well being.

And so I would merely question why in this ONE case we do or should.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Yeah, whatever

I am not sure you can write something like that and then accuse others of condescension really. "Yeah whatever" is about as condescending a dismissal of another person as linguistics afford. But as I said in my infidelity analogy, projection really can be a problem.

But suffice to say due to the way I type, and the equipment upon which I do so, it is simply MUCH more efficient for me to stress words using capitals than using bold or italics or underline. I am not in a position to smoothly highlight my own words and click the BOLD button as people on a more standard desktop computer might be. So far, you included, the number of people across 10 different forums who have had an issue with me doing it has been 3. If this rises to 20 or 30 I might feel some compulsion to change.

But from your posts thus far on the thread I expected more from you, as a person and your rhetoric, than to reduce this discussion to ad hominem comments about HOW I write, rather than replying to WHAT I write. But I can do little in response to that than merely hope you are as let down by yourself doing it, as I am. And hope it will not be an attribute of our discourse going forward.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I feel it complicates an already-complicated matter

That, I agree, can be a very bad thing. But one can also go too far in the other direction and over simplify things too. Both should be avoided as much a possible and I think your "extending rights to before birth" line of discussion is exactly an example of that.

MightyMandarin

seamus wrote: »

No, it wouldn't?

There are many reasons to have the eighth amendment repealed. One may be because it forced the state to make abortion legal in certain circumstances. If you were absolutely opposed to abortion in all its form, you'd be right pissed about that one.

You do of course have every right to make an assumption, however wrong that assumption may be.

Show me one person who fits that description and wants Article 40.3.3 removed.

The state has the right to legislate in this area, insofar as the rights of the mother and child are held in equal regard.

I doubt you'll find a single person on the pro-life side who disagrees with that.

Double standards. If you want to be taken seriously, you can't complain about being talked down to and then do the same thing yourself.

How in the **** am I doing the same thing?

That poster is clearly attempting to dismiss my opinion as of less value than theirs, and I'm the one with double standards. k.

kylith

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I just don't want to end up in a situation where you can simply walk in off the street, demand an abortion and get one with going through a proper well thought out process of talking with say a counselor, doctors etc, getting proper health checks (mentally and physically) and researching other alternatives to abortion etc.

Why should she have to be mentally assessed?

stefanovich wrote: »

It's sad watching all these women at the height of their fertility protesting to have the right to abort.

You mean, the people who are most effected by access (or not) to abortion?

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

Adoption is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancy is at best uncomfortable and at worst life-threatening. Childbirth is without a doubt absolute agony. Why would a woman who does not want to go through that have to? It is not any woman's duty to birth children for other people.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

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.

But I disagree with that. I don't believe that a fetus has a right to life before the point that it is capable of surviving outside the womb. Why should people with your belief be able to override the wishes of people with my belief?

If you believe that a fetus has a right to life at all stages of gestation you can absolutely believe that. No-one will ever force you to terminate a pregnancy if you don't want to, and if they tried I would fight tooth and nail to stop them. However women are forced to carry pregnancies that they don't want to for reasons that they don't believe in.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Sorry, but your opinion is, well, an opinion. I'm sorry to say but there are esteemed scholars in various fields, even lecturers of mine, who share my opinion on this matter. There are facts at play obviously, but on the question of ethics and morals, it is only opinion. Stop thinking your opinion is fact.

Your opinion, and those of your esteemed scholars and lecturers, are not facts either.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

Surely providing access to abortion is, like any family planning service, a duty of welfare to less well-off people? If someone cannot afford to have a child, then surely not allowing them to access abortion is failing in your duty towards their welfare?

I genuinely don't see how the State providing access to abortion could in any way be promoted as a family planning method or even women's healthcare for that matter. The State does provide the medical card on a means tested basis so already there is precedent for what services are and aren't provided on the medical card. To the best of my knowledge, and I stand corrected on this - the State does not provide even for any contraceptive methods on the medical card.

All the social supports in the world can't sort out the fringe elements who will simply sink deeper into poverty with the arrival of another child - them and their other children.

And that shouldn't mean we should simply give up on them though, because if the State is seen to be promoting abortion as a method of family planning, and providing that service for free to those who pass a means test, then it becomes acceptable to allow that section of society to fall further down the socioeconomic ladder (not to mention that they could actually come to regard abortion as a legitimate method of family planning, and it's no stretch as I mentioned earlier that boys would be preferable to girls).

Interestingly a study in the US found that women who campaigned against abortion were more likely to actually get an abortion than women who campaigned for it.

If it's the same comprehensive study we're thinking of, I think the findings were just a tad more nuanced than that now.

In any case denying access to abortion for one low-income person because they happen to be a member of a socioeconomic group that is traditionally against it, makes no sense really.

That's not actually what I suggested though. I wouldn't suggest denying any woman an abortion, I just wouldn't support the idea that the State should have to provide for it.

Outlaw Pete

seamus wrote: »

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.

I want a United Ireland. Should I no longer want that just because some scumbags once put bombs in packed pubs? You can't judge people by the extremists on their side of the debate. Wouldn't be fair to suggest that pro-choicers don't mind being on the same side Kermit Gosnell was on would it. No, and so why suggest those with some form of a pro-life stance support bombing abortion clinics.

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

I would agree, if that was the long and short of it, but I think you are taking one aspect of people's arguments and addressing it as if it was the whole of their reasoning with regards to why it is that they would choose to vote against repealing the 8th.

Sure, people like Louise O'Neill (for example) are not liked but nobody is basing their repeal stance on that alone, nor their dislike for any other pro choice individuals for that matter. It's what these people are saying however which is edging people away from even considering to vote to repeal. Scaremongering about how women's health would be a secondary concern should something go wrong with the pregnancy for example and how Ireland apparently cares more for cattle than it does women. The behavior of those at the forefront of the 'repeal the 8th' campaign so far has largely obnoxious and the crap they have spouted thus mostly misleading, sanctimonious, nonsense.

If they want people to consider voting they way they would like, then maybe they need to start respecting the views on the opposing side and quit bull****ting about what the current situation is.

MightyMandarin

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I never suggested otherwise. My opinions are, opinions. The issue is with calling things opinions that are facts. Opinions are opinions. Facts are facts. That you may be mixing up the two, in no way suggests I am doing so.

But one FACT (not opinion) is that every bit of science we have suggests a 12 week old fetus lacks ANY element of consciousness, sentience or subjective awareness.

Another FACT (not opinion) is that I can think of no OTHER entities in our world that entirely lack ANY element of consciousness, sentience or subjective awareness for which we hold moral or ethical concern as to their rights or well being.

And so I would merely question why in this ONE case we do or should.

I'm not mixing them up, I think you were just dismissing my claims that my reasons of a moral and ethical nature, which are the basis of my beliefs, were wrong, and I did not appreciate that.

I won't dismiss those facts, rather I don't see them as being important.

A 12week old being may not be able to do things claimed, but unless there's evidence which shows it wouldn't otherwise become a being which could do such things, then I see no moral reason to end its life.

There's a big difference between a thing which can't feel or think and a thing which can't feel or think, but would in the future have the ability to do such things.

MightyMandarin

kylith wrote: »

But I disagree with that. I don't believe that a fetus has a right to life before the point that it is capable of surviving outside the womb. Why should people with your belief be able to override the wishes of people with my belief?

Your opinion, and those of your esteemed scholars and lecturers, are not facts either.

Because there's more people who share my belief than share yours, or at least in 1983 there was. That's how democracy works.

No they're not facts, but the most compelling arguments on morality, ethics and law- which to me are the cornerstone of this debate- come from them. I was more making the point that I'm far from an idiot to believe what I believe though.

kylith

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Because there's more people who share my belief than share yours, or at least in 1983 there was. That's how democracy works.

Yes, that is how democracy works, and now a lot of the women who did not get the chance to democratically vote in 1983 (i.e. every single one of childbearing age), would like the opportunity to vote on the issue. Why should they be denied that?

Repealing the 8th just opens the issue to a vote, it does not bring in abortion overnight. We would all get the opportunity to have our say. Hopefully the ballot paper would give options to vote on rather than a yes/no question.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

No they're not facts, but the most compelling arguments on morality, ethics and law- which to me are the cornerstone of this debate- come from them. I was more making the point that I'm far from an idiot to believe what I believe though.

Could you share those arguments with us? I'd be interested to hear them.

pilly

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Because there's more people who share my belief than share yours, or at least in 1983 there was. That's how democracy works.

No they're not facts, but the most compelling arguments on morality, ethics and law- which to me are the cornerstone of this debate- come from them. I was more making the point that I'm far from an idiot to believe what I believe though.

1983 was a long long time ago MightMandarin.

I agree with a lot of your points although I am pro-choice.

I respect your point of view but at the same time I do not get why anyone feels the need to impose their view on anyone else (and I mean that on both sides).

At the end of the day, women will have abortions in the UK for ever more so how is a total anti-abortion stance going to stop the fact that abortions take place every day.

We're just shoving it over to England and saying "sure that's grand, I can hold the moral high ground because I didn't vote to allow it in Ireland". Or "I can pretend that's not happening and bury my head".

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I genuinely don't see how the State providing access to abortion could in any way be promoted as a family planning method or even women's healthcare for that matter. The State does provide the medical card on a means tested basis so already there is precedent for what services are and aren't provided on the medical card. To the best of my knowledge, and I stand corrected on this - the State does not provide even for any contraceptive methods on the medical card.

And that shouldn't mean we should simply give up on them though, because if the State is seen to be promoting abortion as a method of family planning, and providing that service for free to those who pass a means test, then it becomes acceptable to allow that section of society to fall further down the socioeconomic ladder (not to mention that they could actually come to regard abortion as a legitimate method of family planning, and it's no stretch as I mentioned earlier that boys would be preferable to girls).

If it's the same comprehensive study we're thinking of, I think the findings were just a tad more nuanced than that now.

That's not actually what I suggested though. I wouldn't suggest denying any woman an abortion, I just wouldn't support the idea that the State should have to provide for it.

Most contraception is covered by medical card.
I got pill and implant on it (don't think implant is still covered though).

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

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". .

You must be remarkably isolated, or refuse to see it, if you haven't come across that sentiment. EG the Yes reaction to (low brow) pics of aborted foetuses the No crowd often parade about, or the charges of misogyny levelled.

The "Yes" side by necessity are challenged to explain and justify their position far more often than the "No" side are.

Yep, isolated alright. Read through any threads on this matter, including this one and the No side can be just as open to challenge. The usual crap can be spouted from both sides. This particular thread has been generally balanced which is welcome, but the usual stuff like for example men really don't have skin in this game is a very common one from the Yes side.

I see I've triggered you.

You're just looking silly now.

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.

No shít Sherlock, but maybe if you pulled your head out of your self satisfied "I'm on the right side" bubble on the subject for a moment, you'd have to acknowledge that "facts" are position dependant on this subject, this isn't how many people will ultimately vote and that vote will be influenced by both campaigns.

As for entrenched? Your "facts" support your Yes view. No way would you switch to a No vote and no amount of "facts" from the No side would make you change your position. Your mind is made up. So it's a bit rich to accuse others whose minds are equally made up based on their "facts" of being "fools".

Wibbs

neonsofa wrote: »

Most contraception is covered by medical card.
I got pill and implant on it (don't think implant is still covered though).

The IMHO oversubscription of the medical card in Ireland is another debate for another day. It's beyond mad that nearly half of all Irish people have one.

nozzferrahhtoo

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm not mixing them up, I think you were just dismissing my claims that my reasons of a moral and ethical nature, which are the basis of my beliefs, were wrong, and I did not appreciate that.

I do it often. The only thing I can pride myself in is that there are generally two kinds of people on forums like this. The kind that tell you they think you are wrong. And the kind that tell you they think you are wrong, and then take the time to explain why.

I very, very, much strive to always fall into the latter.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I won't dismiss those facts, rather I don't see them as being important.

And I genuinely do not see why. If we do not show moral or ethical concern to such entities, it is not just important in my view to establish why ONE single thing should be the exception........ it is PARAMOUNT to the discussion to establish this.

If everything is treated one way, except one thing, there simply HAS to be a reason for that exception. And the only reason I can imagine for not doing so is that the person refusing to realizes they can't.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

A 12week old being may not be able to do things claimed, but unless there's evidence which shows it wouldn't otherwise become a being which could do such things, then I see no moral reason to end its life.

And there I think you adumbrate the entire difference between the pro-choice and the anti-choice side of this debate. The pro-choice side like me mediate moral and ethical concern based on current reality, while the anti side do so based on future potentials.

And never, alas, the twain shall meet.

I mediate moral and ethical concern based on maintaining or maximizing the well being of beings existing here and now TODAY. The fetus is not such a being and I see no reason to afford it such concern. Least of all when doing so requires impinging on the rights, choices, or well being of an agent that DOES exist today. In this case the pregnant woman making that choice.

ALL of the arguments you offer are good ones for why YOU should never seek an abortion directly or vicariously. Arguments as to why no one else should be offered that choice however, are not really present or forthcoming.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Rational??? Reasoned??? :P

Is that what you call having the same ethical and moral regard for a rock as you do a fetus at 24 weeks (the time you tell us we are "safe" to abort at).

There is nothing 'rational' and 'reasoned' about having the same level of moral concern for the following baby girl born at 24-weeks, which then unfortunately died, as you would a rock.

neonsofa

Wibbs wrote: »

The IMHO oversubscription of the medical card in Ireland is another debate for another day. It's beyond mad that nearly half of all Irish people have one.

Do they? I don't know the figures. I know a lot of people abuse it and attend the doctors for every ailment because they personally don't have to pay. It was a godsend for myself and my child when I was out of work.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Rational??? Reasoned???

Yup, in isolation for sure but even MORE so relative to the kind of responses you have offered such as the tongue moving to music rubbish you tend to post.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Is that what you call having the same ethical and moral regard for a rock as you do a fetus at 24 weeks (the time you tell us we are "safe" to abort at).

And as usual a distortion of my position. What I actually say is that the arguments I offer become grayer and LESS safe as time goes on and certainly around the area of 24 weeks.

What I MOST often say is that the VAST majority of abortions by choice occurs in and before the 12th week, and that implementation of a system that goes too far beyond this would be superfluous to requirements in a way that does not justify the risks inherent in our levels of certainty going down.

We can never be 100% certain at ANY point but we CAN get pretty damn close to it. So it is incumbent upon us to scale higher cut offs coherently and justifiably with reducing certainty. I genuinely do not argue for 24 weeks or see it as a good target. 16 would be more my area. But I would not lose much sleep if 12 or 20 were implemented.

I understand that seeing something with little fingers and toes lights up every emotional area of your brain. It does for me too. I just have the additional ability to push further and deeper than that and realize that no matter what an entity LOOKS like......... my moral and ethical concern for it is mediated SOLELY by it's capacity for consciousness, sentience and subjective awareness. And if a little baby shaped thing lacks it, then I have no moral or ethical concern for it......... whereas if something was installed into a toaster that DID have this faculty...... I would.

I get that that does not parse for you. I get that when music illicits a response in a fetus and a researcher describing the motions it causes as looking LIKE "something trying to speak" you get triggered. I do not, and I have explained in a calm, measured, and considered way why I do not. You just personally do not LIKE the explanation. Which is hardly my problem really, now is it?

MightyMandarin

kylith wrote: »

Yes, that is how democracy works, and now a lot of the women who did not get the chance to democratically vote in 1983 (i.e. every single one of childbearing age), would like the opportunity to vote on the issue. Why should they be denied that?

Repealing the 8th just opens the issue to a vote, it does not bring in abortion overnight. We would all get the opportunity to have our say. Hopefully the ballot paper would give options to vote on rather than a yes/no question.

Could you share those arguments with us? I'd be interested to hear them.

Where have I said we shouldn't have a vote? I think we should have a referendum on the matter, partly to silence the clowns who think that the CC was entirely behind the 1983 result.

I went to a talk last year in TCD and although the real contents of the arguments are too long and too difficult to explain on here, here's an article giving a brief summary of what was discussed and who advocated for each side of the debate.

Edit: University Times also wrote one (probably a better source imo)

kylith

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Rational??? Reasoned??? :P

Is that what you call having the same ethical and moral regard for a rock as you do a fetus at 24 weeks (the time you tell us we are "safe" to abort at).

There is nothing 'rational' and 'reasoned' about having the same level of moral concern for the following baby girl born at 24-weeks, which then unfortunately died, as you would a rock.

There is nothing rational or reasoned about placing an adult woman's rights below those of a 12-week fetus which, as Nozz and others have pointed out, is the point before which the vast (>90% vast) majority of chosen abortions are carried out.

MightyMandarin

kylith wrote: »

There is nothing rational or reasoned about placing an adult woman's rights below those of a 12-week fetus which, as Nozz and others have pointed out, is the point before which the vast (>90% vast) majority of chosen abortions are carried out.

But how is that placing them below their rights? I would argue that it's merely applying the same value to them, in which case, it is perfectly rationaland reasonable.

[Deleted User]

MightyMandarin wrote: »

But how is that placing them below their rights? I would argue that it's merely applying the same value to them, in which case, it is perfectly rationaland reasonable.

It's not reasonable to me, that a few weeks old embryo is equal to me, in the states eyes. That very embryo could stop me receiving medical treatment.