Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

January wrote: »

It's still a risk, and there's more than the risk of death. Incontinence, chronic pain, permanent scars, risk of blood clots during pregnancy. I see you're not going for the welfare angle anymore though.

Welfare rates in this country are extremely good, i should know i was raised on it as part of a family of 5 for quite a few years.

Dick phelan wrote: »

Yes because the Tuam scandal is relevant to the discussion, did i say no man has ever not taken responsibility for their child? Point is people look down on fathers who don't step up as Scumbags and imo rightly so, yet a women ends the life of her unborn baby and that's all ok to you. As i'v said man or woman you should take responsibility for the life you create, i look down on those who don't regardless of gender.

That isn't what you said at all though. You said men don't have a choice in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. I'm pointing out that actually, biologically, historically and religiously, trying to frame men as the choiceless people in cases of unplanned pregnancies is ridiculous.

Dick phelan wrote: »

During the peak of the recession from about 08-2012. Not saying it isn't hard i know first hand it is the point is we got by never went hungry or cold, meant we couldn't do things like go on holiday for a couple of years ect but that's not an essential. Welfare rates are good in this country some of the best in the world it's never going to be easy living on Welfare nor should it be really.

Although there is nothing wrong with welfare, the aim shouldn't be to rely on welfare. Ideally families should be planned when people are mature enough and financially stable to raise them. Welfare being sufficient has no bearing on the eight amendment campaign anyway, only that unfortunately I would imagine those on welfare may find it a bit tougher to get to the UK if they needed to do so, seeing as they get no support from the state.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I expect the usual handful of people clamouring for attention from all sides tbh. They still wouldn't be representative of the vast majority of people's opinions regarding abortion in Irish society. Do you genuinely believe that anyone who is at this stage eligible to vote in a referendum hasn't already formed a strong opinion on where they stand with regards to abortion? All the media "debates" and political posturing is just for show, it won't change the opinions of the vast majority of people in this country.

While their opinion regarding abortion will hold firm, the point is that everyone has always been aware of the Catholic Church's stance on abortion. They're expecting them to roll out the usual arguments that nobody is forced to listen to (sure aren't anti-theists forever high-fiving amongst themselves for the low attendance numbers at Sunday mass?). What they're not expecting, is idiots in fanny hats crowing about a bunch of cells, "but Bill Nye says...", blah, blah, blah...

All that does is turn people's stomach, it doesn't turn them into voters to repeal the 8th amendment, and the ramifications of the cause lost by people who are unfortunately short sighted won't be felt by them at all, it will be felt by the people they sniggered at and derided and tried to silence into submission. Figures indicate that the vast majority of women in the US who have had abortions are religious, and the main reason they gave was for socioeconomic reasons.

You're aiming your ire at the wrong target if you ever have a snowballs chance in hell of hoping that the 8th amendment will be repealed.

One more time with gusto: REPEALING THE 8TH AMENDMENT WILL NOT LEGALISE ABORTION

Pseudorandom wrote: »

One more time with gusto: REPEALING THE 8TH AMENDMENT WILL NOT LEGALISE ABORTION

Try telling that to the most vocal of the "pro-choice" lobby. I know that, you know that, most people who are eligible to vote already know that. It's what comes after the amendment is repealed is what scares the hell out of most people when there are certain lobby groups claiming that abortion is an indication of a progressive society. Is in it's fcuk, I couldn't disagree more with that statement.

I used argue for years on here for abortion without any term limits or special conditions attached, but now, when I see what could become of society if certain lobby groups make any traction at all, I'm not so sure any more. I don't know that we'll even be offered a straight repeal, previous form suggests that we won't, that it'll be some even more convoluted, ambiguous wording we'll be offered.

I think though that the efforts of a small minority will damage the chances that moderate voters will even bother going to vote, whether that be to keep or to repeal the 8th amendment. I also don't see any discussion from those looking to repeal the 8th amendment about after care and support services for women who have had an abortion. No, all I hear is "it's simple", as if an abortion actually is that simple. It isn't, and we already have a dismal mental health service in this country.

For those arguing for abortion using arguments like rape and FFA, and then telling anyone who raises objections to people being used in this way being told they're "triggering victims" - get off the stage. Honestly. Having been raped is traumatic enough without the automatic assumption that you should want to go through an abortion a number of weeks later.

Anyways, I'm off to "check my privilege", I hope it's still there where I left it, couldn't find a hospital bed for it so I had to make do with a bucket.

While repealing the 8th may be more about giving pregnant women rights of consent, it is inexorably linked to the abortion debate and perhaps that's not such a bad thing? It's a discussion that has been a long-time coming and it's a discussion that desperately needs to be had.

No amount of sweeping under the carpet and praying for the status quo is going to make shipping thousands of women a year off to another handily (legally, politically and geographically) placed country with information and post-care we've already legalised and financed morph into not being completely hypocritical and, well...cowardly.

Equally, there's no way to avoid discussing abortion without considering late-term or even mid-term abortion what with the constant improvements in neo-natal care. The reality is on-demand abortion is at best a hard sell for most people and the closer you get to sentience, the less support abortion has - never mind up near the ever narrowing point of viability. It's heartless and naive to think otherwise.

Even the law here is conflicting; a pregnant woman can be stabbed in the belly and the child die but the perpetrator won't be charged with murder because the foetus has no legal "person-hood" and yet we have the X case, Savita Halappanavar, PP v HSE, etc, etc - all stemming from successive governments failure to put clear and concise laws and guidelines in place that don't utterly contradict other legal jurisdictions and the human rights treaties Ireland has signed up to.

A quick scan of most discussions on the matter puts a few outliers on the "no never, not for any reason" or "absolutely, whenever they want up to birth" camps but the vast majority are not wholly against abortion in all cases nor support abortion under any circumstances. Hugely emotive issues like rape, incest, fatal abnormalities...that go right to the core of our humanity are vying for the right to be heard over the voiceless potential of life. There is no way to make this a pretty discussion...Either way someone loses. At the end of the day, for most; it's deciding an arbitrary line where one fundamental human right encroaches on another beyond a point that is acceptable to them.

GritBiscuit wrote: »

A quick scan of most discussions on the matter puts a few outliers on the "no never, not for any reason" or "absolutely, whenever they want up to birth" camps but the vast majority are not wholly against abortion in all cases nor support abortion under any circumstances. Hugely emotive issues like rape, incest, fatal abnormalities...that go right to the core of our humanity are vying for the right to be heard over the voiceless potential of life. There is no way to make this a pretty discussion...Either way someone loses. At the end of the day, for most; it's deciding an arbitrary line where one fundamental human right encroaches on another beyond a point that is acceptable to them.

To reply to that I'm going to quote a post I made before:

Pseudorandom wrote: »

I really think it's a dangerous and all too common failing to strawman the people who are on the other side of a debate to you. The reality right now is that most reasonable people fall somewhere in the middle of these dichotomies. The issue is the the loud fringes who somehow become the representatives of their sides in the media, thus pushing the middle's further and further to the edges in reaction to what are obviously nonsense views. Then both sides get annoyed because they're being "misrepresented" by "radicals".

Pseudorandom wrote: »

I don't think I've seen a single post in this thread citing "privilege" or "triggering" or any of the throwaway terms you use to dismiss people who have different opinions to you.

This was from just a few hours ago, in this thread -

Lady Spangles wrote: »

We're clearly digressing into the abortion laws here, so my comments are relevant. Also, check your privilege yeah? You really don't get to decide what other people do with their bodies, any more than I decide what you do with yours.

And the assumption of "triggering", was in the other recent thread on abortion that's still running in After Hours... I didn't realise it was the same poster, I only realised when I searched for the post. I'll be the first to admit that weakens my point significantly as it's the same poster who is doing their campaign no favours -

Lady Spangles wrote: »

All our thoughts and sympathies would be with anyone who could not carry a pregnancy to term. In essence, they have not chosen to end their pregnancy; it has in fact been forced on them by a cruel twist of nature. What's more cruel is that they're forced to go to England, or they're stuck in a terrible limbo here in Ireland. Rape and sexual abuse victims are others who find this whole campaign triggering.

But the pro-choice campaign must make noise and be as visible as possible. It must make waves, or it will be under rug swept yet again. We can't afford to let that happen, otherwise the suffering will continue. If the state didn't continue to impose these draconian laws, then none of us would be in this terrible situation.

I do hope that prior to any referendum that people who are actually serious about legislating for abortion will distance themselves from that sort of hysterical rhetoric.

Lady Spangles wrote: »

An embryo is just cells. Nothing more.

I wasn't talking about embryos.

So much is wrong with what you post. First you posted on the thread with that tired old line: 'If you don't believe in abortion, that's fine, don't have one' which completely ignores the reasoning behind just why it is that people would vote to prevent abortions being legally available in their country.

You see, pro-choicers like you are so obsessed with the notion that people are trying to control what women do with their bodies, that you see everything through that prism, and so your responses are always in that context... but if you took even two minutes to understand just why people are against abortion, even if just late stage abortions, then you would understand how trite and irrelevant your replies are. Let me use this example:

If someone was against the death penalty... would you say to them: "If you don't believe in the death penalty, that's fine.. sure you don't have to execute someone"? Nope, cause you know that would be completely ignoring the fact that they are against the death penalty because they don't believe people should be killed (given that they could very well be innocent) and so telling them they don't have to execute someone themselves doesn't solve their issue that if the death penalty is brought it, innocent people would might be killed.

Well, it's the same with Abortion: as telling people (as you did) that they don't have to have an abortion themselves if they don't agree with them, doesn't address the fact that they against the killing of unborn children no matter who makes that "choice" to kill. They themselves, or strangers.. makes no difference, end result is the same: a heartbeat is stopped, a human being's life ended.

Also, you said that "All pro-choicers agree with women having a choice" and that's true, but they all differ on just when it is that they personally believe that it's morally okay for women to exercise that choice... and that's something you fail to acknowledge... and if they don't agree that it should be okay to end a developing baby's life at say 32 weeks (and the vast vast majority don't) well then they don't genuinely believe in body automony at all and there are other reasons why they feel it should be okay to abort at 20-24 weeks and not from 25+.

Lady Spangles wrote: »

People in a persistent vegetative state already have their machines switched off depending on the wishes of the family (I'm quoting UK law, not sure where RoI stands). But you're obfuscating the issue here as we're talking about embryos and foetuses. That's not quite the same thing as someone in a coma.

I'm not obfuscating the issue at all.

They're not the same, you're right, but I never said they were the same. They do however have commonalities. A developing human being in the womb has brain waves, a heart beat and can react to muscle stimulation the same way a person in a coma can. Their neurological state can be quite similar, particularly if there is some brain damage and of course both potential.

Now if I took a hammer to a man in a coma I have no doubt I would be charged with murder.. and rightfully so... so why not a 24 week-fetus (for example)? Why are they not thought as much of as someone in a coma? Well, when a woman is choosing to kill them I mean.... as when a man does so, they very much are thought a lot of:

Florida man who tricked girlfriend into taking abortion pill sentenced to nearly 14 years in prison

A twisted Florida man was sentenced to nearly 14 years in prison for tricking his ex-girlfriend into taking an abortion pill last year and killing their 6-week old fetus.



John Andrew Welden, 29, apologized Monday for his actions as a federal judge in Tampa handed down the 13 year, 8 month sentence. But his victim, former girlfriend Remee Jo Lee, demanded the judge show the calculating fiend “the same amount of mercy that he showed me during my pregnancy,” the Tampa Tribune reported.

Welden and Lee, 27, had been romantically involved for nearly seven months when they learned last February that Lee was pregnant. The news, however, did not unite them.

Lee was ecstatic about becoming a mother, but Welden, who was working on a degree in sports medicine, wanted her to terminate the pregnancy.

"I was never going to do anything but go full term with it, and he didn't want me to," Lee told WPTV News last year.

Welden’s father, an obstetrician in the town of Lutz whom his son worked for, examined Lee and confirmed the pregnancy. During that visit, Lee had her blood drawn.

The following day, Good Friday, Welden informed Lee that her blood work had turned up a bacterial infection and gave her what he claimed was the antibiotic Amoxicillin.

The bottle actually contained Cytotec pills, which induce labor and result in abortion.

Trusting Welden, Lee ingested one of the pills and went to work.

“He came to my house with the pills, his weapon of choice," Lee told WPTV.

On Easter Sunday, Lee fell ill and experienced vaginal bleeding. Doctors at a hospital told her she had suffered a miscarriage caused by Cytotec.

When he joined her at the hospital, Welden admitted that he had given her the abortion drug.

"He used this pregnancy as my Achilles heel,” Lee said. “He knew I wanted to do what is best, so that is why I took (the pills).”

Welden admitted scratching off lettering on the Cytotec pills that would have identified them as a drug other than Amoxicillin.

“I’ve caused everyone a huge amount of emotional pain,” he said. “What I’ve done will stay with me every day for the rest of my life.”

The judge ordered Welden to serve out his sentence at a low-security, federal prison camp and to pay nearly $30,000 in restitution to Lee, who told the court she bled for nearly a month after the forced abortion.

Welden will spend three years on probation after his release.

“I don’t believe Mr. Welden’s an evil person, but he committed an evil act,” Judge Richard Al Lazzara said, “and he’s going to pay the consequences.”

Seems to me that it's not time limits at all that determine the worth of a developing human being at all, but more how a woman feels about it. She wants it and a man slips her abortion pills at six weeks gestation: an evil act which warrants a 14-year-sentence. She doesn't want it and has it killed 5-6 months into her pregnancy: her body, her choice.

What a world.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Hang on a second. What is it specifically that caused you to change your mind on the issue? If abortion without conditions was once ok in your eyes, what's different about it now?

I never argued that it was 'OK' patrick, because it isn't, but I was willing to accept that the loss of one human life was an acceptable loss if it was done to prevent the loss of two human lives. I argued that human life at any stage of human life, has the right to be treated with dignity and respect, even in death.

This was before the 'clump of cells' rhetoric became a popular refrain among a certain minority who were less interested in women's welfare, and more interested in promoting their own political agenda. Their efforts to argue for broadening our abortion laws in this country hinged on the premise that the unborn was of no value, that it could easily be discarded and everyone could carry on about their lives as easily as though they just had their appendix removed. An abortion would simply be considered a minor inconvenience, an abstract concept that would appear to have no consequences for anyone involved.

It certainly goes back to your earlier point you made that emotional attachment (or even emotional detachment) is a societal construct. You suggested that these are not innate emotions. But they are, all emotions are innate, how we process those emotions is what is influenced by society, and if society were ever to reach a point where we have no respect for human lives that are an inconvenience to us, then there is no impetus upon anyone to draw a line. Eventually a society that goes in that direction leads to a society of narcissistic sociopaths, completely devoid of the very innate, intrinsic traits and values which separate us from animals. We lack compassion for other human beings and become self-interested, with no regard for human life. Eventually we'll be the one's fighting for our right to life when we become an inconvenience to others, and because they have no emotional attachment to us, they'll have no qualms about bumping us off.

I'd rather not support any move to drive Irish society in that direction, even if it means that I cannot have what I would wish for society. Some people will just keep pushing their own agenda with no regard for how it may affect other people in society. I could never get behind that ideology.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

much as I don't want to play "tone police" here, I fear that the Repeal side will get lumped in with the extremists.

Heard that in the SSM campaign, too: "Disown Panti, ye'll look ridiculous!".

Eh, no, if you are for repealing the 8th, you are on my side in the vote.

Afterwards, when it comes to legislation, I'll be arguing for Canada, and you can do you.

D0NNELLY wrote: »

noone disagrees with that.

Then we must repeal the 8th.