B_Wayne wrote: » If somebody got to make decisions on the behalf of your body, would you be fine with that?
Calhoun wrote: » Not really under the terms of what has been provided in this thread, we are saying that Ms X case is so important because she was a refugee and was vulnerable in a number of ways. As folk are focusing on the fact she is a refugee they are differentiating her from the women who cannot afford it. If we start to dig into the refugee question questions will be asked.
Consonata wrote: » I haven't touched the refugee topic. You are not accepting that her situation (in that she could not leave due to her immigration status) is not similar to other Irish women's status (in that they can't afford to/whatever their reasons may be).
Calhoun wrote: » I am accepting that they both are in dire situations and both should be serviced from Ireland. I am arguing the point that if you put one on a pedestal over another holes can be picked in it. In fact in both cases you could pick holes in them, that is exactly what the pro-life side will do. This convoluted back and forth we have been doing is just a drop in the ocean of what i see coming. The side that can talk it our rationally has a better shot than the side that goes heavy on the rhetoric.
volchitsa wrote: » And since we don't, isn't that evidence that the majority of our society doesn't actually see the unborn as being the equivalent to a born person in the way you have tried to present it?
If I came at you now with a knife, a bystander would presumably be entitled to hold me down, tie me down if necessary, to stop me, right? Should we do the same to a pregnant woman who is determined to abort her pregnancy?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » All you're trying to do really is get people to say that they agree with women being restrained so that yet more martyrdom can be injected into the debate, as if there wasn't enough of it already.
RobertKK wrote: » But when there is an abortion, is the woman terminating her life, or that of a human life within her body?
B_Wayne wrote: » In terms of her being from or not from Ireland, I don't think it remotely matters.
Absolam wrote: » people (to a large degree) are not legally obliged to intervene in those circumstances, even if they arguably have a moral obligation.
Calhoun wrote: » It is an outlier actually
Discodog wrote: » So much of our bad law results from the constitution. We should throw it out & make a new one fit for this century.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Men used to legally be able to rape their wives... would you suggest that was evidence that the majority of society was okay with that? Of course not.
Some laws are simply unworkable, doesn't mean that society is okay with the associated crimes taking place, that's where you're thinking is flawed. Women have been jailed for taking abortion pills late into pregnancies, have they not? And men have been jailed for the death of fetuses also. Therefore, it is quite clear that we put value on the life of a fetus as a society. It's poppycock to be trying to suggest that because we don't chain women to beds, we really must therefore be okay with developing babies being killed. All you're trying to do really is get people to say that they agree with women being restrained so that yet more martyrdom can be injected into the debate, as if there wasn't enough of it already.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » The 8th only affects outliers.
Consonata wrote: » Women who can't afford to leave Ireland are outliers? Women who can't leave due to residency statu's? Women who can't get time off work to go to the UK?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Yes, they are. Thousands of Irish women every year are inconvenienced but not prevented from getting an abortion by the 8th. How many do you think are in the residency/poverty classes? There are also women who are under age (and dependent on parents) or in prison or a psychiatric institution, but not, I think, thousands every year.
Consonata wrote: » I don't think you quite understand how expensive it is to have an abortion in the UK. A combination of that + the waiting lists mean it can be quite difficult to get one.
AnGaelach wrote: » "My body and my choice and that's final." "What the fúck do you mean I have to pay for it? Society should pay for it".
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Consonata wrote: » Because I totally said that it should be all covered by the tax payer :pac:
AnGaelach wrote: » But you think most or some of it should be?
AnGaelach wrote: » Using the argument that abortion is "expensive" in the UK as being a barrier to abortion here. If you're going to use that argument as to why it should be legal here, then the logical conclusion is that abortion here will have its costs socialised.
Consonata wrote: » If it is done within the HSÉ then it is inevitable that it will be covered in some way or form by the tax-payer. Tax payer €'s pay for equipment, the doctors, the nurses carrying out the operation.
AnGaelach wrote: » That's a very nice way of sidestepping the question. We're talking about the procedure itself, and whether you think it should be made deliberately affordable for people (and thus subsidised by the State) or if it's at an "at-cost" price.
eviltwin wrote: » Why shouldn't it be free? All other maternity care is free, health care in general isn't costed on the basis of bad choices which is what you are getting at. Why should the tax payer cover the cost when the silly girl got herself knocked up. We have a non judgemental health system for a reason.
