Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

1…2627293132…332

Comments

  • #842
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Sorry, that's not true of a private clinic. Don't know about the NHS.


  • #843
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    notjustsweet wrote: »
    There's no such thing as a no-questions abortion in England...

    As good as.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/12/crackdown-hospitals-abortion-one-doctor


  • #844
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    pilly wrote: »
    Sorry, that's not true of a private clinic. Don't know about the NHS.

    The law applies to everyone, private or public. The only difference being private patients pay.
    https://www.mariestopes.org.uk/women/abortion/abortion-facts/what-uk-law-abortion


  • #845
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    notjustsweet wrote: »
    The law applies to everyone, private or public. The only difference being private patients pay.
    https://www.mariestopes.org.uk/women/abortion/abortion-facts/what-uk-law-abortion

    And where does it say there that inconvenience is not a valid reason?

    Take from someone who's been there, it's a 5 minute chat, in and out. There may be a requirement for 2 doctors to sign a piece of paper but you don't see 2 doctors.


  • #846
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,014 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    notjustsweet wrote: »
    The law applies to everyone, private or public. The only difference being private patients pay.
    https://www.mariestopes.org.uk/women/abortion/abortion-facts/what-uk-law-abortion

    Be careful you'll get blocked next.


  • Advertisement
  • #847
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    pilly wrote: »
    And where does it say there that inconvenience is not a valid reason?

    Take from someone who's been there, it's a 5 minute chat, in and out. There may be a requirement for 2 doctors to sign a piece of paper but you don't see 2 doctors.

    Pilly why are you arguing with me? My point was that people do have to have a reason and was made to the person making smart comments about hopping on a boat for a no reason abortion without the "inconvenience" of speaking to doctors.


  • #848
    BabyCheeses
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    pilly wrote: »
    Congratulations guys on converting a yes voter to no voter.

    I'm definitely out on the basis that people seem to think that not only is it a right to have abortion on demand, it's a right to have it free.

    At the moment even the morning after pill is not free and there's a reason for this.

    It will encourage carelessness and a devil may care attitude.

    I am slowly beginning to understand why people get so riled up by this issue. I can not believe the sense of entitlement around it.

    You want to get rid of child benefit as well then? Can't support carelessness can we.

    We already have abortion for those who can pay and take the time off already.


  • #849
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    notjustsweet wrote: »
    Pilly why are you arguing with me? My point was that people do have to have a reason and was made to the person making smart comments about hopping on a boat for a no reason abortion without the "inconvenience" of speaking to doctors.

    I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you that your statement was incorrect.


  • #850
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,914 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    pilly wrote: »
    I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you that your statement was incorrect.

    his statement wasnt incorrect. Where you both differ is that your experience of this doesnt match what the law allows.


  • #851
    infogiver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭infogiver


    pjohnson wrote: »
    Its more emotional manipulation and perpetuating a myth. Odd to bring your child anyway.

    Perpetuating what myth? What on earth are you talking about "odd" ?


  • Advertisement
  • #852
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    infogiver wrote: »
    Perpetuating what myth? What on earth are you talking about "odd" ?

    We're still waiting on a source for that claim, by the way.


  • #853
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,014 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    infogiver wrote: »
    Perpetuating what myth? What on earth are you talking about "odd" ?

    The favourite myth of the anti choice side that abortion will 100% lead to the complete extinction of Down Syndrome. What is hilariously ignored is that could only happen if a policy of COMPULSARY abortion was enforced. No one in this entire thread is demanding compulsary abortion yet ye lot are up in arms over it.

    Its just odd to bring a child to such a meeting to wave about as being some kind of token anyway.


  • #854
    Icemancometh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 873 ✭✭✭Icemancometh


    Feel like I should this as a disclaimer; I'm personally pro-choice, and fully believe in women's autonomy over their own bodies.

    Several people here have posted that the foetus should have no protection, because it has no thoughts, no awareness of its surroundings and no sense of self. But this logic also applies to infants for the first few months of life. It applies to those with severe intellectual disabilities, whether congenital or acquired. It also applies to those with severe dementia. Why don't we apply the same logic to these groups, as we seek to apply to the foetus?


  • #855
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Icemancometh wrote: »
    Feel like I should this as a disclaimer; I'm personally pro-choice, and fully believe in women's autonomy over their own bodies.

    Several people here have posted that the foetus should have no protection, because it has no thoughts, no awareness of its surroundings and no sense of self. But this logic also applies to infants for the first few months of life. It applies to those with severe intellectual disabilities, whether congenital or acquired. It also applies to those with severe dementia. Why don't we apply the same logic to these groups, as we seek to apply to the foetus?

    The difference being the other groups mentioned aren't living in the wombs of another person.


  • #856
    Icemancometh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 873 ✭✭✭Icemancometh


    January wrote: »
    The difference being the other groups mentioned aren't living in the wombs of another person.

    I get that bit, like I said I'm pro-choice. I'm not making the argument that the foetus shouldn't have rights for those reasons, others on this thread are. I'm just following the logic through.


  • #857
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #858
    Icemancometh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 873 ✭✭✭Icemancometh


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Once again, I agree with women's right to autonomy. Euthanasia should be an active choice that individuals choose for themselves, so have to disagree with you there.


  • #859
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #860
    Icemancometh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 873 ✭✭✭Icemancometh


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I've seen it plenty of times, should still be the person's choice to make. Failing a living will type scenario, I don't see any circumstances where it should be forced upon somebody.


  • #861
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,224 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    pilly wrote: »
    The morning after pill is not free at the moment. You do know that don't you?

    Yes it is, to medical card holders.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Advertisement
  • #862
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Barbie! wrote: »
    Local elections are due in the next few weeks. I wonder will they lump in a referendum with that vote or maybe it would be too soon. Either way I see a referendum being called because I believe it would be political suicide for any party to try legislate without going to the people.

    As I said in my first post yesterday, I think any vote to bring in abortion will be defeat cause their is a far large silent majority than people think.


    Edit to add I just seen January's post so running a referendum with the local elections is probably out of the question.

    Huh?

    Local elections are due in Ireland in about May/June 2019.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #863
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    If you truly believed that then you would believe a woman should have the right to kill her baby the week it's due to be delivered. Nobody in their right mind believes such a thing, unless the woman's own life is in danger of course, and so you can't believe a woman should have more rights than her unborn baby... without of course indulging in the usual cop out caveats.


  • #864
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,914 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    If you truly believed that then you would believe a woman should have the right to kill her baby the week it's due to be delivered. Nobody in their right mind believes such a thing, unless the woman's own life is in danger of course, and so you can't believe a woman should have more rights than her unborn baby... without of course indulging in the usual cop out caveats.

    You're right, nobody believes that.


  • #865
    noaddedsugar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 316 ✭✭noaddedsugar


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    If you truly believed that then you would believe a woman should have the right to kill her baby the week it's due to be delivered. Nobody in their right mind believes such a thing, unless the woman's own life is in danger of course, and so you can't believe a woman should have more rights than her unborn baby... without of course indulging in the usual cop out caveats.

    Have you ever been pregnant for 39 weeks? If you have you would know that no one of sound mind is going to go through a pregnancy for 39 weeks then go 'nah, sod this, I want an abortion'. It just isn't going to happen.

    If someone does go to their Dr and at 39 weeks and says they want an abortion I would hope that they would be given proper supports in terms of their mental health, that if necessary they be would be delivered early(because as we all know at full term they can exist outside of the womb and don't need the woman to be a vessel anymore).

    I certainly don't think that the woman should be forced to remain pregnant against her will, if she goes to her Dr at 39wks looking for an abortion then she is obviously suffering greatly.


  • #866
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    Honestly, I was shocked at how liberal this result was. I was even more surprised to learn it was Sinn Féin and not Fine Gael that took a potshot at the CA about being too liberal.

    I could be tempted into voting (or abstaining from voting) for replacing the amendment with FFA/rape but constitutionally protecting a right to abortion up to 12 weeks "for no reason" at all is far far far too liberal for me.

    I'll be voting firmly against any such measure.


  • #867
    noaddedsugar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 316 ✭✭noaddedsugar


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    Honestly, I was shocked at how liberal this result was. I was even more surprised to learn it was Sinn Féin and not Fine Gael that took a potshot at the CA about being too liberal.

    I could be tempted into voting (or abstaining from voting) for replacing the amendment with FFA/rape but constitutionally protecting a right to abortion up to 12 weeks "for no reason" at all is far far far too liberal for me.

    I'll be voting firmly against any such measure.

    'For no reason' is that the actual phrasing? I don't think anyone out there has an abortion 'for no reason' do they? I would think it would be for 'any reason'.


  • #868
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    noaddedsugar wrote: »
    'For no reason' is that the actual phrasing? I don't think anyone out there has an abortion 'for no reason' do they? I would think it would be for 'any reason'.

    They don't have to give any reason so "no reason" fits better than "any reason".


  • #869
    noaddedsugar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 316 ✭✭noaddedsugar


    AnGaelach wrote: »
    They don't have to give any reason so "no reason" fits better than "any reason".

    Oh ok it's just clunky phrasing then. Grand that they don't have to give a reason, but there certainly will be a reason that the woman is seeking an abortion.


  • #870
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #871
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    noaddedsugar wrote: »
    Oh ok it's just clunky phrasing then. Grand that they don't have to give a reason, but there certainly will be a reason that the woman is seeking an abortion.

    Well yeah, obviously the reason is they don't want to carry the child, that's a bit of a tautology isn't it? The fact is they don't have to give any opinion or reasoning on their decision. It's essentially just "I want it".


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement