The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not to mention the number of people who suggest they are 'pro-choice', advocating that it should be a woman's choice and that she should have the right to choose what happens within her own body, etc... but, only up to a certain point in her pregnancy, that they're comfortable with. They never when questioned explain what they think should happen to a woman who would want to terminate her pregnancy in the manner of her choosing after that point.

Pro-choice but only up to a certain point implies an inherently deceptive position in that they really don't think women should be trusted to make choices for themselves at all, but rather that women should only be able to make choices that they're comfortable with. How that position is any different from pro-life/anti-choice/whoever disagrees with them... has never been explained to me by anyone. They always, always prefer to ignore that question. Seems it presents an uncomfortable conundrum for their ideological position.

Well no. When there's no brain activity, properly functioning organs etc, it's obviously different than when there is and when the foetus has the capacity to feel pain and to survive outside the womb. You're not thick Jack, that's not a difficult point to understand.

And in terms of repealing the eighth it's a rather moot point anyway. The funny thing is, relatively few women take a notion to get an abortion in the third trimester! Rates in the UK are something in the order of .1% IIRC, and those would include Irish women of course.

I care more about the women who need an abortion now, and who should be able to access one safely and with dignity, than about hypothetical third term foetuses and how exactly I or any other person really feels about them.

Mr. CooL ICE

Jamiekelly wrote: »

If you plant a seed in the ground it has the potential to become a tree. If you take said seed out of the ground, you have not cut down a tree.

According to some on this thread you could be accused of burning down a whole forest for digging up a seed.

Excellent analogy

I, like most pro choice supporters, would love it if abortions never needed to be carried out. However, it is anything but a black and white situation and when push comes to shove, I prioritise the already-living over the not-yet-living.

AtomicHorror

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you have a referendum on pro choice abortion, what about one on pro choice murder? Should people not have the choice to murder people?

If you have a scenario where:

person A's continued life is entirely dependant on person B's life, and where;
person A's continued life is also dependant on person B taking a calculable risk to their own health and life

Then, person B should be allowed to choose if they want to take that risk.

The only scenario I know of that fits this description is pregnancy, but if others exist and if the constitution blocks choice, then a referendum is certainly needed.

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Excellent point made in this post.

A good friend of mine needed an abortion (for health reasons, not that it matters. Rather than get an extremely early term abortion at 5 weeks, she had to go on a waiting list for a clinic in England, and save the money for flights and accommodation. She ended up having an abortion at 14 weeks instead. She needed the abortion to protect her health at the time but because of the 8th amendment it was the termination of a 14 week old fetus instead of a 5 week old fetus.

That's all the 8th amendment does, just kicks the ball down the road.

I remember that horror case a few years back where a hospital wasnt allowed unplug a deceased (and eventually decomposing) woman solely because she was pregnant.......not even Stephen King or Garth Ennis would be that macabre. Yet this was a great success for some people. It showed the reality that once pregnant certain people view a woman (even deceased) as nothing more than an incubator for 9mths. Yet they pretend they are "pro life". They may care for the fetus but they do not care for the woman in the least.

A Little Pony

If the referendum is precise then go for it. But it can't just be a simple yes or no like Brexit, it is not as simple as that. If it is just yes to abortion, go wild with it, then I say no. NI should have a vote on this.

AtomicHorror

infogiver wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote:

infogiver wrote: »

I'm too lazy for all the mental gymnastics that pro abortion people have to put themselves through in order to persuade themselves that a baby is not a baby.
You must all be exhausted from it

On this we can agree. You are intellectually lazy.

I'm lazy and stupid I think.

Infogiver, I'd like to retract my comment and apologise. This is really not the kind of debate I would like to have, even when the topic is contentious.

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Excellent point made in this post.

A good friend of mine needed an abortion (for health reasons, not that it matters. Rather than get an extremely early term abortion at 5 weeks, she had to go on a waiting list for a clinic in England, and save the money for flights and accommodation. She ended up having an abortion at 14 weeks instead. She needed the abortion to protect her health at the time but because of the 8th amendment it was the termination of a 14 week old fetus instead of a 5 week old fetus.

That's all the 8th amendment does, just kicks the ball down the road.

Yup, same as. I know two women that I can think of now who ended up getting surgical rather than medical abortions because of the expense, having to get off work etc. Time limit for medical abortion is nine or ten weeks, that can be a reeeal tight time limit under the circumstances.

pjohnson wrote: »

Oh god do you know think an Embryo has a fully functional human body?

What's God got to do with it?

infogiver wrote: »

What's God got to do with it?

Excellent evasive manouver.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

The destruction of babies would be murder.

Good job we're not talking about murdering babies.

No we're not. We all have to toe the line about the terminology we use.
For example, it's not murdering babies it's terminating a fetus, I think, I'm not sure.
We don't want anyone upset.

pjohnson wrote: »

Excellent evasive manouver.

You mentioned God, not me.

infogiver wrote: »

You mentioned God, not me.

Yes but you seemed to miss the other words that were inconvenient to your argument.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Infogiver, I'd like to retract my comment and apologise. This is really not the kind of debate I would like to have, even when the topic is contentious.

I don't want to either. It's tiresome and it just goes round in circles so as they say on Dragons Den, I'm out.
Unfollowing.
Edited to add: I appreciate your apology although it was entirely unnecessary.

Mr. CooL ICE

pjohnson wrote: »

It is using words in their actual proper form.........a woman is refered to as being pregnant when there is a viable embryo/fetus inside her. You cant just start arguing since you dont understand big words.

Mod: Less of this please. Try arguing your point without resorting to petty digs.

Sofiztikated

infogiver wrote: »

No we're not. We all have to toe the line about the terminology we use.
For example, it's not murdering babies it's terminating a fetus, I think, I'm not sure.
We don't want anyone upset.

Terminology IS important.

And full disclosure, I'm a person with a condition that, when spotted, most doctors will recommend a termination.

One eyed Jack

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Well no. When there's no brain activity, properly functioning organs etc, it's obviously different than when there is and when the foetus has the capacity to feel pain and to survive outside the room. You're not thick Jack, that's not a difficult point to understand.

And in terms of repealing the eighth it's a rather moot point anyway. The funny thing is, relatively few women take a notion to get an abortion in the third trimester! Rates in the UK are something in the order of .1% IIRC, and those would include Irish women of course.

I care more about the women who need an abortion now, and who should be able to access one safely and with dignity, than about hypothetical third term foetuses and how exactly I or any other person really feels about them.

It's not a moot point, it's the whole point, because in terms of the 8th amendment, it recognises the equal right to life of the unborn, in the context of human life, not 'the foetus', which is a medical term used to describe human life from the 8th week of development to birth.

You're right that IDX is incredibly rare (.017% of all abortions in the US last time I checked the stats), so why not legislate for that on the understanding that actually we do trust pregnant women?

As for the idea that current legislation disproportionately affects women who are socioeconomically deprived, I would suggest that has more to do with the fact that they are socioeconomically deprived, than it has to do with our current legislation regarding abortion. Using people's circumstances as socioeconomically deprived is the ultimate "let them eat cake" argument IMO as though allowing for abortion is a solution to socioeconomic deprivation, with no regard for those women's health or mental well-being. It's assuming that they would have the €600 to afford an abortion, it's assuming that the person who impregnated them recognises their agency, it's assuming that women who are socioeconomically deprived would want an abortion, rather than the social supports and access to education which women in other countries have, which is the real reason why those countries abortion rates are so low.

Take a look at the overall statistics regarding socioeconomics and you'll quickly see that it's mostly women who are members of minority groups who are disproportionately affected by their socioeconomic status who have abortions not out of choice, but out of necessity and social pressure. I say disproportionately affected, because the majority of women who avail of abortion in the US are Christian white women (I don't have the stats for the numbers of women who are transgender who have availed of abortion).

I don't expect young college students and idealogues to understand that reality though, and that's not a dig at you personally, I just mean it from my own perspective that there's a hell of a lot more to this issue than what some idealogues would want people to understand, so they deliberately set people up in conflict with each other by using misleading information, rather than giving people impartial information and trusting them to make up their own minds.

njs030

infogiver wrote: »

I don't want to either. It's tiresome and it just goes round in circles so as they say on Dragons Den, I'm out.
Unfollowing.
Edited to add: I appreciate your apology although it was entirely unnecessary.

You've resorted to silly comments, ignored any reasonable questions and your only input has been about your life and your child and friends. The world outside your door isn't your problem!

The 8th amendment isn't just about abortion it's also about women having control of their own body during pregnancy and being allowed to choose what medical procedures they do or don't want to undergo.

One day you might be glad other people went out of their way to try and get choices for everyone not just for themselves.

One eyed Jack

notjustsweet wrote: »

You've resorted to silly comments, ignored any reasonable questions and your only input has been about your life and your child and friends. The world outside your door isn't your problem!

The 8th amendment isn't just about abortion it's also about women having control of their own body during pregnancy and being allowed to choose what medical procedures they do or don't want to undergo.

One day you might be glad other people went out of their way to try and get choices for everyone not just for themselves.

The 8th amendment isn't about abortion at all, it's about recognising, acknowledging and protecting the equal right to life of the unborn as far as is practicable. Legislation could be drafted while the 8th remains in place as it is, but the political will isn't there. That's why upon my reading of what the citizens assembly were asked, it seems as though politicians would prefer to wash their hands of the issue and offer legislation which would still be just as contentious and wholly inadequate as the POLDPA 2013.

You're not actually interested in getting choices for everyone if your only concern is women who agree with your choices btw. That's not being petty, it's a significant point, a bit like the womens march that chose to exclude women who didn't agree with their opinions.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a moot point, it's the whole point, because in terms of the 8th amendment, it recognises the equal right to life of the unborn, in the context of human life, not 'the foetus', which is a medical term used to describe human life from the 8th week of development to birth.

You're right that IDX is incredibly rare (.017% of all abortions in the US last time I checked the stats), so why not legislate for that on the understanding that actually we do trust pregnant women?

I mean that it's approaching a moot point because given the amount of late term abortions which occur when they're readily available, and the reasons for which they generally occur, the rather obsessive discussion of them is unproductive and unnecessary. I'm totally in favour of legislating for late term abortions in that I'd like to see a situation where the law says pregnant woman and her doctor can make the decision to carry out an abortion at any point and without having to prove that she deserves one. I don't at all think I'll ever live to see that situation in Ireland though.

As for the idea that current legislation disproportionately affects women who are socioeconomically deprived, I would suggest that has more to do with the fact that they are socioeconomically deprived, than it has to do with our current legislation regarding abortion. Using people's circumstances as socioeconomically deprived is the ultimate "let them eat cake" argument IMO as though allowing for abortion is a solution to socioeconomic deprivation, with no regard for those women's health or mental well-being. It's assuming that they would have the €600 to afford an abortion, it's assuming that the person who impregnated them recognises their agency, it's assuming that women who are socioeconomically deprived would want an abortion, rather than the social supports and access to education which women in other countries have, which is the real reason why those countries abortion rates are so low.

Where are you getting that I said lack of access to abortion makes people socially deprived? I agree with everything you're saying here, and I think people who are very opposed to abortion would spend their time much more productively if they campaigned and advocated for social inclusion and mobility, better education, better access to healthcare including contraception etc. Fact remains that Jacinta from Ballybane and Sorcha from Raheny are likely to be very very differently impacted by the same situation: an unwanted pregnancy which they wish to terminate.

Take a look at the overall statistics regarding socioeconomics and you'll quickly see that it's mostly women who are members of minority groups who are disproportionately affected by their socioeconomic status who have abortions not out of choice, but out of necessity and social pressure. I say disproportionately affected, because the majority of women who avail of abortion in the US are Christian white women (I don't have the stats for the numbers of women who are transgender who have availed of abortion).

I think this is in reference to me talking about marginalised people? I wasn't referring to religious or ethnic minorities. IME the most deprived minorities in Ireland would be relatively unlikely, generally speaking, to want to access abortion.

I don't expect young college students and idealogues to understand that reality though, and that's not a dig at you personally, I just mean it from my own perspective that there's a hell of a lot more to this issue than what some idealogues would want people to understand, so they deliberately set people up in conflict with each other by using misleading information, rather than giving people impartial information and trusting them to make up their own minds.

Well I'm neither a young college student nor an ideologue, in fact when I was I would have been rather pro-life. Bit of real life soon copped me on though.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The 8th amendment isn't about abortion at all, it's about recognising, acknowledging and protecting the equal right to life of the unborn as far as is practicable. Legislation could be drafted while the 8th remains in place as it is, but the political will isn't there. That's why upon my reading of what the citizens assembly were asked, it seems as though politicians would prefer to wash their hands of the issue and offer legislation which would still be just as contentious and wholly inadequate as the POLDPA 2013.

:D:D:D:D

Someone should have told that to the people who were specifically worried about a ruling similar to Roe vs Wade happening in Ireland and campaigned and voted for the eighth amendment specifically so that abortion could not be legislated for.

Seriously man, if you so much as hint that anybody in this thread is being disingenuous or intellectually dishonest, or lying to themselves...that's fcuking Kafkaesque what you just said.