anna080 wrote: » I just feel for the women who wanted more than anything to carry a child and whose pregnancies were not viable, for whatever reason, having to watch clips of young ones running around with fanny hats on their heads and crass banners and face paint. Those women surely cannot identify with that?The Repeal approach is so alienating- they really have no idea how to go about this with logic, reason and respect.
CroatoanCat wrote: » Interesting discussion. I'm pro-choice. In the interests of full accountability, my personal preference would be for a Canadian-style regime where the decision is entirely a matter for the pregnant woman and her doctor. My primary concern will always be for the welfare and well-being of the pregnant woman, over and above that of the foetus. I have no objection to being called a pro-abort. My position is that it is simply a question of whether abortion is safe and legal or dangerous and illegal. We in Ireland have not had to face up the repercussions of that choice because of our geographical proximity to Britain. However, I realise that my views do not align with the majority of my fellow Irish people. All the research and polling data show there is not support for the introduction of a liberal Canadian or British-type abortion regime in this State. I agree, too, that abortion is a morally complex and nuanced issue. There really is no comparison with the marriage equality referendum. When you stripped it all down, the core message of the "Yes" side in that campaign was a positive and life-affirming one - essentially, that there should be no obstacle to any couple who come together in love and seek the sanction and protection of the State in so doing. There is no similar happy message when it come to abortion. Depending on your view, we are dealing here with provisions for ending, by artificial means, a potential life or an actual life. I agree the Repeal campaign has lost its way and is essentially talking in an echo chamber. Its militant approach has no chance of connecting with people who are conflicted on this issue, which is the majority of people in our society. A lot of Irish people see a tangible and moral difference between, for example, an eight-week embryo and a 20-week foetus. Some, therefore, might tolerate an abortion regime which permitted terminations on request up to ten or 12 weeks but not beyond that. Most Irish people feel enormous compassion for rape and incest victims, especially very young girls, who become pregnant, and for couples who face a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality. The Repeal campaign is simply not speaking to any of those people. For these reasons, I am convinced a referendum to repeal the eighth referendum without any indication as to what will replace it will be lost. I'm in my 40s and I feel confident in saying that third trimester abortions will never be tolerated in this State in my lifetime. Indeed, I would even say with some certainty that second-trimester on-demand abortions are unlikely to be tolerated in this State in my lifetime. There simply is no majority support for such a regime. What, then, can pro-choice campaigners hope to achieve? I really feel the only achievable changes at this time will be modest. There is a logical and reasoned argument to be made for the removal of the eighth amendment from the Constitution, which is to do with what has been described as its "chilling effect" on medical practitioners in their treatment of all pregnant women. That argument should and must be made in a reasoned and respectful way. Polls consistently show that a majority of people support the availability of abortion where there is a diagnosis of fatal (not non-fatal) abnormality. I think a proposal to repeal the eighth amendment and amend the 2013 Act to facilitate that small cohort of women and their families would have a good chance of passing. I hope it is done and that a constitutional amendment to that end is passed. As I said, there simply is not the support for a liberal, abortion on request regime through the second trimester or beyond. People will simply not vote to repeal the eighth amendment if they feel there is any chance the Legislature could introduce something like that, now or in the foreseeable future. The Repeal campaign is refusing to accept that reality and stymying its own efforts in the process. Looking to the longer term, what do other pro-choice people think is achievable? What do the somewhere-in-the-middle people feel they could tolerate? I have been thinking about this and am imagining something like the following. Would be interested to hear what other people think! The eighth amendment and 2013 Act to be repealed, and: Abortion to be permitted: - In the first trimester, on demand; - In the second trimester, where: there is a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality; the pregnant female is aged 16 or under; or there is a risk to the health or life of the pregnant female from continuing the pregnancy; Termination of pregnancy via induction of labour in the third trimester, with the delivery of a live infant where possible, to be permitted where: - There is a risk to the health or life of the pregnant female from continuing the pregnancy; or - The pregnant female is aged 16 or under.
kylith wrote: » I do not have the right to bodily autonomy while I am pregnant. I have lost that right simply because I am pregnant.
I cannot terminate the pregnancy even if I require medical treatment, in fact, I cannot even receive medical treatment if it would harm the fetus unless my life is in immediate danger (i.e. I have to be in the process of dying).
Risk of loss of life from physical illness Two physicians, one an obstetrician and the other a specialist in the field of the relevant condition, must concur.[15] For example, if the woman has cancer, the two physicians would be an obstetrician and an oncologist. Where relevant, the specialists must also consult the woman's general practitioner (GP). The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.Risk of loss of life from physical illness in emergency In a medical emergency, a single physician must both provide the diagnosis and perform the termination.[16]Risk of loss of life from suicide Three physicians must concur; an obstetrician, a psychiatrist with experience treating women during or after pregnancy, and another psychiatrist.[17] At least one of them should consult the woman's GP with her consent. The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.
Some of my human rights are suspended because I am pregnant, whether or not I want to be.
Here we go wrote: » Not 100% on this but what medical treatment would it stop you from having as far as I know abortion is legal when a mothers life is in danger so doctor makes a call after taking into account if he can save you with out putting your child's life at risk if not and your life's in danger and he can't perform surgery if nessesery with out danger to the child doctor calls it and performs sugery again sorry if that's not how the law is supposed to work but as far as I understand it
bubblypop wrote: » As an example of how a embryo can affect a woman's medical treatment. A number of years ago, I had an ectopic pregnancy. I was told I needed emergency surgery. I was put under general anesthetic & the embryo removed. At no stage was I told that there was any other treatment available to me. There was, I found out long afterwards. I could have received medication had I been in any other country. In this country they wouldn't give it to me as it targeted the embryo, basically 'terminating' the pregnancy. So I had to have surgery & the after affects of surgery, because of that embryo was equal to me.
jameorahiely wrote: » Are you saying abortion drugs aren't used in hospitals in Ireland? Because you'd be wrong if that's what you're saying
Wibbs wrote: » 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.
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.
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".
MightyMandarin wrote: » So UCDSU's president is now a staunch pro-life activist and daughter of the Iona Institute's director. I'm quite amazed that a candidate with her beliefs won a student election, but she must've run an excellent campaign.
seamus wrote: » That actually makes me laugh, it might lead to some much-needed introspection in the union about why they even exist. Nobody really cares about the Student's Union, very few students bother voting in it. It's one of those organisations that exists for no reason except to give the people working in it something to do. A mate of mine was SU president in UCD when he was there and he got elected just by simply making his face known. It wasn't weeks of shaking hands and pounding the pavement, just getting your face on a load of posters and spending time talking to people in the bar. In her case no doubt she went to a lot of effort to get her face out there and get known, so when the few hundred people bothered to vote, hers was the best-known face out there. Fair play to her, it'll look good on the CV when she moves into her media & communications career. It is though a very good case study on a small scale of how populations can be convinced to vote for a candidate that doesn't represent them at all.
seamus wrote: » Ah, now you're just creating a strawman. That's not even close to what I said. How many people change their mind from a "no" to a "yes" just because they dislike the "no" campaign?
I didn't say that people who made up their minds based on facts were fools.
In fact I said the exact opposite - those who have made up their mind without having any real basis behind it, but refuse to question themselves, are fools.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Come on, Nozz. You have said many many times now that we are "safe" to abort at 24 weeks
Outlaw Pete wrote: » but if you really feel 24 weeks is a grey area then you need to stop saying that we are safe to about at that time and it's grossly irresponsible.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Ah come on, Nozz, ffs. You have regularly suggested that abortions at 24 weeks are not only justifiable, but morally sound. Here's just a selection:
Outlaw Pete wrote: » And yet here you are now claiming that you don't argue for 24 weeks.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Give it a bloody rest. Your posts are constantly suggesting, if nor outright stating, that there is nothing ethically or morally wrong with aborting at up to 24 weeks.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » How patronizing and condescending can you get. You speak to people like they are dumb. We are not taking about flesh that LOOKS like human beings, we are talking about ACTUAL human beings.A "BABY SHAPED THING"
Outlaw Pete wrote: » It has nothing to do with 'liking' what you say. It's about the inaccuracy of it.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » You label almost all fetal movement as autonomic and then call yourself reasoned and rational. There is nothing reasoned and rational about what you are doing. Yes, lots of fetal movement is autonomic, but that doesn't mean it all is.
MightyMandarin wrote: » Those arguments are compelling, but they still do not provide justification for taking the life of an unborn person imo.
MightyMandarin wrote: » You, and others, may believe that a woman's choice is superior to the unborn's right to live, but I simply do not.
MightyMandarin wrote: » How early we terminate a pregnancy makes no difference to me; it's still morally repugnant to the ethics of a just society.
MightyMandarin wrote: » imo an unborn person has that right.
MightyMandarin wrote: » a serious potential to become a person, given time.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I have said we are likely to be safe but I have OFTEN qualified that by also saying that our certainty of that is diminished. You distort my position (willfully, and often) by only citing half of it. This is not an honest move from you, though a common one. I REPEAT, the longer the process continues and the more the fetus develops, the more the potential there is that we are wrong about its faculty of consciousness. The weight of evidence suggests to me we ARE safe at 24 weeks, but I do not hold as much confidence as I do at 12 or 16 weeks. So since the majority of abortion requirement is at 12 weeks I think we should ensure that any move BEYOND that point scales with the risks and potential error involved. I would be perfectly happy with 12 weeks if it were so implemented. I would myself aim for 16. I would not go beyond 16 without good argument. Now do you care to address my ENTIRE position on this matter, or will you instead choose to continue attacking portions of my position in isolation to distort what I actually say, think, believe and espouse? As I said I think we ARE safe there in terms of consciousness, sentience and subjective awareness but the chances that I/we are wrong in that regard are certainly higher than at 12 weeks. So while I think we are likely safe, I also think there is no justification for taking that risk when the significantly VAST proportion of requirement is in or before week 12. There simply is no significant requirement, in my view, to push the risks that far. You seem to think it should be all or nothing. 100% certainty or nothing. Life does not work that way. There is always risks and always potential errors, no matter how small. The best we can do in the real world, rather than just the ideals in our head, is mediate our actions to account for a balance between requirement and risk. We should not offer more than is required, and certainly not if doing so does not scale justifiably with the risks. And AGAIN as I just said twice above, I genuinely believe they are morally sound. I just believe it with a smaller level of certainty than I do at 12 weeks. You seriously seem to be struggling with the fact that I have different numbers in my head for different contexts. There is the context of what I think we are likely safe doing, the context of what I think people require, the context of what I think we should actually be offering, and the contexts of where I think certainty diminishes with time. When I talk about any ONE of those contexts in isolation, I discuss a different number for different reasons. When I balance ALL of them together into an overall view of what I think a moral and just society should be doing however it all comes together to around 16 weeks as what I IDEALLY think we should be offering. You go from thread to thread acting like I am somehow contradicting myself by saying different numbers at different times, but I am not. There is one number I believe in OVER ALL, and other numbers I would discuss in more specific contexts. And despite you contriving to ignore it, I have frequently explained that and made it abundantly clear. My OVERALL position on abortion is that I think 24 is superfluous to majority requirement, and does not scale justifiably with steadily reducing certainty, I would campaign for 16 if asked to do so, but would be more than happy, and would not lose much sleep at all, over a system implemented around 12 or 20. I genuinely do not know how to make that any clearer to you, especially as I genuinely also believe it IS clear to you but you contrive to pretend it is not in order to manufacture inconsistencies in my writing that actually are not there. I don't. I argue for why I think 24 weeks IS ok, but I also explained pretty clearly why it is not what I argue FOR. There is a massive difference you (contrive to?) miss between what one argues IS ok, and what one argues FOR. I think 24 would likely be ok. But it is not at all what I argue FOR, and I have told you that multiple times, on multiple threads, now. You CLEARLY get triggered highly emotionally on this subject, I get that. And your heart is in the right place. So perhaps if I make an analogous point NOT to do with abortion it might settle better with you. Let us take marriage. During the equality referendum one comment popped up quite commonly. It was something like "Well if you are ok with changing marriage for homosexuals, why not for incest or polygamy too?" MY response to that is I think incestuous (assuming consensual adults) and polygamous marriages ARE ok and I have nothing against them. So my position is that they are OK. However I do not argue FOR them. My position of arguing for them is SEPARATE and DISTINCT from my position of thinking they are ok. I strongly believe that the EFFORT and COST of maintaining the institute of marriage should scale with the societies actual requirements for it. Homosexual marriage was ok because the effort of offering it to them was relatively small, and the quantity of people requiring it large. But with incest and polygamy there are more complicated requirements to offer it, and a relatively minor requirement for it (a statistical non-entity in fact). So while I would be ok with it, I in no way argue or advocate for it. See the difference? Now bring that back to abortion. I think 24 weeks is likely a safe zone. I would be OK with it (like I am ok with polygamy marriage). But a number of factors do NOT scale that position with actual requirements and realities so 24 is not what I argue FOR. See now? Being OK with X and actually actively arguing FOR X are two different positions. I can debate both of them coherently and consistently without any internal contradiction in my positions or beliefs. There most likely isn't. But as I keep saying I do not argue for it because the actual requirement for it (very very small) does not scale justifiably with the drop in moral certainty on the point. If you feel dumb reading what I write, then so be it, but that does not mean that is how I talk to you. The tone you assign to what I write is not always the one I write in alas. But no, I am not convinced we are talking about "ACTUAL human beings". Not in the sense of human person hood I mean, which is what is important here. It is clearly human in terms oflife cycle, dna, and biology and so forth. No one appears to be denying THAT. But in terms of "Human" "person" and everything relevant to rights and moral and ethical concern...... I do not see it as being that at all. An attribute you have not managed to show it has in any way. Certainly not by merely asserting it to be so. I never claimed it "all" is. Certainly all the ones YOU have presented appear to be though. A researcher tried to describe what tongue movement looked like, in a way the reader would understand, and he described it as what it would look like if "someone was trying to speak" as I recall. And you were triggered by this as if he was suggesting it ACTUALLY WAS "trying to speak". It is that kind of error to which i refer when discussing autonomic responses. You took something descriptive and responded to it like it was literal. If you want to show some fetal movement is indicative of there being a person there, with some level of consciousness or sentience, then by all means do so. But until you do so........ I am not sure what you THINK Your point is here.
Deedsie wrote: » I'm definitely in favour of change from the current ridiculous situation. However to me something with a heartbeat is alive and is a viable life and deserves to be protected by Irish law. However if the child is not going to survive the parent/guardian should be able to choose whether or not an abortion as a form of euthanasia is the correct approach. Or if the Mother was potentially endangered. I would never want abortion on demand/application in Ireland. Cases where the mother became pregnant through rape or incest the mother should be compelled to decide before 8/9 weeks whether she wishes to terminate the pregnancy or not. Also I think the repeal the 8th people maybe in for a shock as to how many people would be reluctant to vote in favour of change without a structured alternative abortion policy in place. People talking about the right to abort a perfectly viable child at 24 weeks makes me a little sick to be honest.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » You have not established in any way that it HAS that right, or on what basis it should have it.
A just society should be one built upon maximizing the well being of sentient beings. Since the fetus is NOT such a being, but the pregnant woman is, I see no reason to afford it moral and ethical concern even in isolation, let alone relative to that pregnant woman.
There is nothing "morally repugnant" about holding no moral and ethical concern for a non sentient entity.
Ayuntamiento wrote: » I see where you're coming from in wanting to be moderate. However these are decisions that need to be made between women and their doctors. The constitution is not the place for abortion to be discussed. Your argument is that 'something with a heartbeat is alive' and that immediately reminded me of that recent horrific case of the young pregnant woman who suffered a huge stroke and was left brain dead but kept alive purely because the fetus inside still had a heart beat. Her family and her treating doctors all agreed that she should be allowed to die in dignity and not be used as a human incubator, yet they had to apply to the courts to allow her to be taken off life support because of the 8th amendment. Her doctors had to give evidence of the fact that her body was essentially decomposing and rotting as each day went by because she was brain dead and unable to sustain life even with all the medical interventions. Your moderate position can't defend the above situation. How about you vote to repeal the 8th amendment from the constitution and allow it to be dealt with as a health issue between a woman and her doctor?
Tigger wrote: » The lady in question was dead so she didn't care and I'll bet you anything that if she wanted that baby then she would have done anything to let it live . If leaving it in her brain dead body had let it gestate then why not. She was already dead so there was no need to let her die. I have two more points 1 I'm pro choice generally but the rhetoric makes me confused 2 she was turned off under the current situation so It's a straw man argument to even bring it up. I'll vote to repeal on 1st trimester and on fatal fetal abnormal cases but not late second trimester unless it's a fata case. It seems to me That tats not what's Being discussed
Ayuntamiento wrote: » From a medical perspective it would never have been possible to sustain the life of that fetus under the circumstances. The medical team should have been allowed to turn off the life support on that poor woman as soon as she had passed, as they would have been able to if she had not been pregnant. The 8th amendment did not sustain the life of that fetus. It never stood a chance from when the mother died. All the 8th amendment did was add another layer of complexity to the grief of that family. From a practical perspective, that poor dead woman and her unsustainable fetus took up a place in an intensive care unit throughout the duration of the case despite the medical evidence showing that there was no chance of survival for either. How would you feel if your child/parent/partner died waiting on an ICU bed while that woman (who was already dead) took up a desperately needed space?
Deedsie wrote: » I'm definitely in favour of change from the current ridiculous situation. However to me something with a heartbeat is alive and is a viable life and deserves to be protected by Irish law. However if the child is not going to survive the parent/guardian should be able to choose whether or not an abortion as a form of euthanasia is the correct approach. Or if the Mother was potentially endangered.
Ayuntamiento wrote: » However these are decisions that need to be made between women and their doctors. The constitution is not the place for abortion to be discussed. ... How about you vote to repeal the 8th amendment from the constitution and allow it to be dealt with as a health issue between a woman and her doctor?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Abortion will never be treated as just a health issue between a woman and her GP because the State recognises the right to life of the unborn even if an abortion were never sought by the woman in question. The 8th amendment recognises their equal right to life, and repealing it wouldn't take away the right to life of the unborn.
Tigger wrote: » If I vote to repeal the amendment what weeks do you think abortion on demand should be allowed up until?
Tigger wrote: » interesting so if the 8th didnt exist what woulf the cobstitutional situation be?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d3e92925f7bde702415f91ea088d4f7a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
