The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Outlaw Pete · 09-05-2017 12:19AM

B_Wayne wrote: »

If somebody got to make decisions on the behalf of your body, would you be fine with that?

They already do... and yes I am fine with that.

If I want to drink (or take drugs) and drive, there are laws in place stopping me from doing so, but it's my body and so it should be my choice, right... so why can't I? Well, because I might kill an innocent person and therefore we need to have laws in place to best prevent that from happening. The fact that I would be prevented from doing something with my own body (at the same time as I am being preventing from getting into a car intoxicated) would be purely incidental... and the same applies in the case of abortions as our abortion laws are designed to protect innocent human beings from being harmed too and that some people would be prevented from doing what they wanted with "their own body" would also be purely incidental.

Also, we have a Gender Recognition Act here in Ireland now and so men in Ireland can become pregnant (not all, obviously) but if any of the men to which I refer did fall pregnant and they came to the decision that that they wanted to have an abortion... they would be unable to do so given that they would be subjected to the very same laws which pregnant women currently are here.

Consonata · 09-05-2017 12:21AM

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.

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 · 09-05-2017 12:30AM

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).

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.

Consonata · 09-05-2017 12:32AM

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.

What holes can you pick in these cases?

Outlaw Pete · 09-05-2017 12:48AM

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?

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.

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?

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.

Murrisk · 09-05-2017 05:49AM

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.

On this. Earlier in the thread, you said that nobody in the thread was judging women based on their sexual history and behaviour and that people who suggested that it was happening on-thread were being martyrs. A number of posters replied to you with posts from earlier than your post in the thread that directly contradicted your assertion. Have you chosen to ignore this?

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2017 06:09AM

RobertKK wrote: »

But when there is an abortion, is the woman terminating her life, or that of a human life within her body?

No, generally a doctor does it (unless it is very early days and pills work).

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2017 06:13AM

B_Wayne wrote: »

In terms of her being from or not from Ireland, I don't think it remotely matters.

It sometimes matters very much. Most women from Ireland can just hop on a Ryanair flight, there is abortion on demand as in the UK for them.

Non-EU women may have not have visas which allow them into the UK, they are one of the groups who suffer from our ban on abortion on demand, along with the very young, the poor, the very sick and those in institutions.

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2017 06:29AM

Absolam wrote: »

people (to a large degree) are not legally obliged to intervene in those circumstances, even if they arguably have a moral obligation.

The State is required to intervene to protect a real person, but we had two referenda to stop the State intervening to save the unborn.

In the Supreme Court judgement on the X case, Judge Hederman opined that it would be OK to lock women up if they were pregnant and suicidal. The majority of the court disagreed with his opinions (excerpts from Hederman below).

We also had two referenda where the pro-lifers tried to write Hederman's opinion into the constitution, and failed.

The State therefore can be obliged to take positive action to intervene to prevent an imminent destruction of life and one obvious way is by a restraining order directed to any person who is threatening the destruction of the unborn life where known to the State. That can include restraint of the mother of the child where she is the person or one of the persons threatening the continued survival of the life.
...
If this young person without being pregnant had suicidal tendencies due to some other cause then nobody would doubt that the proper course would be to put her in such care and under such supervision as would counteract such tendency and do everything possible to prevent suicide.
...
Suicide threats can be contained. The duration of the pregnancy is a matter of months and it should not be impossible to guard the girl against self-destruction and preserve the life of the unborn child at the same time. The choice is between the certain death of the unborn life and a feared substantial danger of death but no degree of certainty of the mother by way of self-destruction.

From supremecourt.ie

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2017 06:34AM

Calhoun wrote: »

It is an outlier actually

It is an outlier because ordinary Irish women have abortion on demand already. The 8th only affects outliers.

Discodog · 09-05-2017 07:08AM

So much of our bad law results from the constitution. We should throw it out & make a new one fit for this century.

AtomicHorror · 09-05-2017 09:01AM

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.

Would you trust the current shower to write a new one from scratch? They couldn't agree on where to eat lunch, let alone something with real consequences.

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2017 09:20AM

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.

Yes, but every narrow interest group would have an objection to some section or other of the new text, so everyone would have some reason to vote it down.

It doesn't help that it was crap when it was written - worse than the Free State one it replaced. Voted in with nearly exactly the same percentage as FF in the General Election, it was Dev and FF ramming through a party political broadcast.

volchitsa · 09-05-2017 11:17AM

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.

I've no idea how that's a reply to my point that if people believed it to be the case, they would want the laws adjusted so as to take that into account.

Clearly they don't believe that.

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.

If a law is unworkable, it needs to be changed or removed.

It's very poor legislating to knowingly leave a law that is unworkable on the statutes to send a signal or whatever - because one of the signals it sends is that breaking the law doesn't necessarily matter very much.

And no, I'm not trying to "inject martyrdom", I'm saying that simple observation tells us that the claim that abortion is much like killing a person is false.

Whether that's a good thing or not is pretty much irrelevant - the point is that there's a massive inconsistency at the center of the prolife view that blows a hole in their own claim to believe what they say they believe. Since nobody (including you apparently) is arguing that we should imprison a woman for having an abortion, that shows that it's not nearly as good a comparison as the usual pro life argument would claim.

Basically they don't believe their own argument.

Consonata · 09-05-2017 02:01PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The 8th only affects outliers.

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?

It's pretty ridiculous to suggest that the 8th only effects outliers haha.

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2017 02:50PM

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?

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 · 09-05-2017 02:53PM

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.

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.

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2017 04:30PM

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.

I am not saying is easy or cheap. I am saying that the groups who cannot access abortion in the UK are folks with particular issues, not the majority/mainstream.

The pro-life crew still seem to be under the impression that the 8th is preventing a lot of abortions. I don't believe that it is. I think it is only those with visa issues, the underage dependent on pro-life parents, people in institutions and those who cannot afford to travel, while thousands of average women can and do travel every year.

....... · 09-05-2017 04:38PM

This post has been deleted.

AnGaelach · 09-05-2017 04:40PM

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.

"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".

Consonata · 09-05-2017 04:41PM

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".

Because I totally said that it should be all covered by the tax payer :pac:

....... · 09-05-2017 04:46PM

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2017 04:51PM

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".

There is a booming industry in flying to Eastern Europe to have your teeth done because it is that much cheaper than here - maybe the UK would still be cheaper even if local clinics here were offering terminations.

But my point is that the groups who are really denied by the 8th (as opposed to being unable to afford it) are the ones who really need the 8th repealed - and they are the corner cases.

AnGaelach · 09-05-2017 04:52PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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: »

Because I totally said that it should be all covered by the tax payer :pac:

But you think most or some of it should be?

Consonata · 09-05-2017 04:54PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

But you think most or some of it should be?

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.

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2017 04:54PM

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.

No, that is a giant leap, not a logical conclusion.

One reason it is expensive in the UK is because it involves a trip to the UK, plane tickets, accommodation, days off work - none of which would be needed if it was a lunchtime appointment at your local clinic.

AnGaelach · 09-05-2017 04:56PM

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.

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.

Consonata · 09-05-2017 04:59PM

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.

Personally, no, as I think of it as just a medical operation.

However if that were the pro-life's red line, I would be quite happy to keep it confined to clinic's so long as it were legalised in those cases, and more importantly, legalised if there are medical complications etc.

There are still vast savings to be made on plane tickets, hotels, time off that are still to be made for Irish women in that situation.

eviltwin · 09-05-2017 05:00PM

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.

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.

AnGaelach · 09-05-2017 05:07PM

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.

Because not only is abortion in most cases reprehensible to me, having to pay for it through taxes is a slap in the face to my beliefs (and a great many other people in the country).

Maternity care is free because it provides a long-term benefit to the State - those children are going to become adults and workers, they're going to contribute to the State over the long-term. I have no problem providing assistance to single mothers or young families.

An abortion isn't maternity care... The entire point of the argument is that the person getting the operation doesn't want to be a mother.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments