Abortions for only a select few, citizens assembly wide of mark

Hollister11 · 07-10-2017 12:07AM

Abortions should not be allowed if the mother simply doesn't want the kid, not at all.

They should be allowed if

The mothers life is in danger.
The child has abnormal syndromes.

gctest50 · 07-10-2017 12:21AM

Hollister11 wrote: »

Abortions should not be allowed if the mother simply doesn't want the kid, not at all.
...........

Why not ?

A top gynaecologist reckons it needs reform, i'd say she knows more about it :

Prof Lesley Regan, head of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists wants nurses and midwives to be allowed to administer abortion pills, and only one doctor’s approval to be required

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/05/make-access-to-abortion-easier-uks-top-obstetrician-demands

and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists :

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) voted on Friday to support the growing demand for decriminalisation of abortion in Britain.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/22/abortion-decriminalise-crime-britain-childbirth-doctors

meanwhile you get this sort of carry-on :

Anti-abortion Republican resigns after 'urging extramarital lover to get an abortion'

Anti-abortion congressman Tim Murphy will resign from Congress following reports that he allegedly asked a woman he was having an affair with to get an abortion.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tim-murphy-resigns-abortion-republican-house-lover-latest-a7985691.html

sdanseo · 07-10-2017 12:47AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Voters aren't going to take that leap of faith. Vote to scrap something without knowing what will replace it.

Exactly.

There are many who like myself would favour abortion being facilitated in any of the scenarios mentioned in the media - rape, suicidal, fatal abnormality, or other area where there is a demonstrable need for it (and by demonstrable need, the burden of proof should be dramatically lower than it is now)

However the idea of of willy-nilly abortion simply because people were irresponsible or changed their mind doesn't sit well with this demographic either.

There has to be, like with many things, a balance. And a lot of voters will balk when they see a ballot paper where a balanced equation is not presented and revert to the status quo.

Failing an agreement on the above there is nothing to stop two votes on the same day. One ballot to repeal entirely, and the second ballot being claused on the failure of the first, being to repeal and replace with a limited restriction such as described above.

The Legend Of Kira · 07-10-2017 12:51AM

This is a video from a Tv debate prior to the recent German elections, a down syndrome teenager ( [font=Roboto, Arial, sans-serif] Natalie ) [/font] in the audience raised the issue to Angela Merkel regarding abortion of unborn down syndrome babies, after I watched the contribution by ( [font=Roboto, Arial, sans-serif] Natalie ) she swayed me even more to vote against any repeal of the 8th amendment.[/font]
[font=Roboto, Arial, sans-serif]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8VFl6blKo0
[/font]
[font=Roboto, Arial, sans-serif]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8VFl6blKo0 [/font]

gctest50 · 07-10-2017 01:03AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

This is a video from a Tv debate prior to the recent German elections, a down syndrome teenager ( Natalie ) in the audience raised the issue to Angela Merkel regarding abortion of unborn down syndrome babies, after I watched the contribution by ( Natalie ) she swayed me even more to vote against any repeal of the 8th amendment.

,

“It’s an insult to Se, to his family and friends, to use down syndrome in a pro life campaign.

“Se is loved and cherished by all around him. I find the use of pictures of children with down syndrome in the pro-life campaign to be deeply upsetting. It implies that giving the choice, I’d have chosen to abort him,” the statement read.

“That because of Se’s down syndrome, I’d love him a little less, that he’s not worthy of the love we have for him because he’s not deemed to be perfect.

“Se is perfect, Se is our choice.”

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/its-an-insult-to-use-down-syndrome-in-campaign-irish-mothers-anger-at-prolife-handling-of-disability-issue-35503650.html

uch · 07-10-2017 01:12AM

Hollister11 wrote: »

Abortions should not be allowed if the mother simply doesn't want the kid, not at all.

They should be allowed if

The mothers life is in danger.
The child has abnormal syndromes.

Complete Bollocks

Any woman should have any choice over what does or doesn't happen to their own body

Tsipras · 07-10-2017 01:17AM

uch wrote: »

Complete Bollocks

Any woman should have any choice over what does or doesn't happen to their own body

If she chooses not to have a baby she can choose not to get pregnant

uch · 07-10-2017 01:19AM

Tsipras wrote: »

If she chooses not to have a baby she can choose not to get pregnant

It's a bit late at that stage

Tsipras · 07-10-2017 01:27AM

uch wrote: »

It's a bit late at that stage

Yeah tis, but if she had sex without contraception then it shouldn't come as a surprise what the result is and you have to own up to your responsibilities

gctest50 · 07-10-2017 01:28AM

Tsipras wrote: »

Yeah tis, but if she had sex without contraception then it shouldn't come as a surprise what the result is and you have to own up to your responsibilities

What if she did use contraception and it failed ?

Even vasectomy :

Male sterilisation or vasectomy: around 1 in 2,000 men can become fertile again in their lifetime after a vasectomy.

http://bit.ly/2fTmEGr

(again)

Tsipras · 07-10-2017 01:37AM

gctest50 wrote: »

What if she did and it failed ?

I think everyone knows any contraceptive is not 100% reliable, I've always believed that whenever there's sex there's a chance of pregnancy.

I do have sympathy for any woman who hasn't planned it, and how I vote will depend on the limits (I've no idea what that will be but off the top of my head if it's in the first 2-3 weeks I'd probably vote yes but after that I'd definitely vote no)

Richard Bingham · 07-10-2017 02:01AM

gctest50 wrote: »

The drivel in that post would only encourage more people to be pro-choice

Excellent well thought out argument. You sure put the thing in perspective.

Uosdwis R. Dewoh · 07-10-2017 02:04AM

The cognitive dissonance of some on either extreme can be bizarre.

Pro choice (or pro abortion realistically in some cases) folk tend to be all about compassion, justice, fairness, equality in most situations... but some think a woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy late on. I've even heard some say that they wouldn't personally terminate very late, but who are they to judge if a woman does it. Of course people are going to judge - judging happens all the time, even by people who think they're not judgmental. Late abortion of a healthy foetus is barbaric IMO - how isn't it?

I also really dislike phrases like "a woman should have bodily autonomy" or "bodily integrity" as if women have absolutely none of the above in this country. Why not just say "the right to terminate a pregnancy" and be honest? "My body, my choice" loses its validity too when there is another body formed inside the woman.

Then some of those on the anti abortion side seem to have no problem with saying "Feck em" in relation to babies of those who are fleeing war-torn countries, and they poke fun at "retards" (their words). It does seem like some of them only cling to the "anti abortion no matter what" outlook because the left/feminists support abortion.

Personally I think abortion should be available here (as women are going to travel anyway and they're prolonging the pregnancy by having to do so) but only early on/pre sentience if the foetus is healthy. I acknowledge there will be very occasional exceptions after that (e.g. unviable foetus, extreme disability) but in general, I disagree with abortion later.

I know people are going to think that those who have an abortion, because their child is going to be born with severe disability, just want to eliminate the inconvenience for themselves, and it's partly true, but I can still understand why they would do it - it's no picnic of a life for someone to be living in extreme pain and unable to communicate when they need relief either. Is it wrong not to want to put someone through that?

I know the above is inconsistent but it's difficult to be black and white in relation to this particular topic.

Richard Bingham · 07-10-2017 02:11AM

Uosdwis R. Dewoh wrote: »

Personally I think abortion should be available here (as women are going to travel anyway

Ditto;

- hard drugs
- prostitution
- insert your illegal activity of choice....

Uosdwis R. Dewoh · 07-10-2017 02:12AM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Ditto;

- hard drugs
- prostitution
- insert your illegal activity of choice....

I think both of the above should be decriminalised in order to reduce the current quite vicious criminal aspects, but I said a lot more than just that bit.

Richard Bingham · 07-10-2017 02:17AM

Tsipras wrote: »

I think everyone knows any contraceptive is not 100% reliable, I've always believed that whenever there's sex there's a chance of pregnancy.

I'm going to let you in on something. The vast majority of failures of contraception are not failures of contraception at all. They are;

- people being too pissed to use it properly
- people not using it at all because they didn't bring any to the pub but pulled
- people who don't take responsibility for their actions and expect society to fix it for them
and
- stupid people

Of course occasionally it may fail but that's where personal responsibility is supposed to kick in.

gctest50 · 07-10-2017 02:20AM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I'm going to let you in on something. The vast majority of failures of contraception are not failures of contraception at all. They are;

- people being too pissed to use it properly
- people not using it at all because they didn't bring any to the pub but pulled
- people who don't take responsibility for their actions and expect society to fix it for them
and
- stupid people

Of course occasionally it may fail but that's where personal responsibility is supposed to kick in.

What she got drunk and accidentally put her tubes n stuff back together ?

Female sterilisation: Around 1 in 200 women will become pregnant in their lifetime after being sterilised.

Accidently build a Depo filtering machine and do a bit of hemodialysis in the jaxx by accident ?

.

Uosdwis R. Dewoh · 07-10-2017 02:21AM

While I do agree there are all these cop-outs and excuses (and people relying on withdrawal in 2017 - mother of god!) I think Tsipras is probably referring to the cases, very rare as they may be, where contraception is used correctly but still fails.
And I suppose in those cases, a woman isn't necessarily going to realise the contraception failed until her period is a no-show. So that's the morning after pill out of the equation.

Richard Bingham · 07-10-2017 02:23AM

Uosdwis R. Dewoh wrote: »

I think both of the above should be decriminalised in order to reduce the current quite vicious criminal aspects, but I said a lot more than just that bit.

I can see an argument for legalising drugs as cops in every country in the world devote so much of their time chasing drug busts because its the only type of prosecution that their superiors value (yet they are losing the 'war on drugs') and as a result other crime goes unsolved, however every time I read or see a story about some scumbag drug addict who neglected/beat the **** out of/murdered a 2 year old defenceless child I get my senses back.

Richard Bingham · 07-10-2017 02:24AM

uch wrote: »

Complete Bollocks

Any woman should have any choice over what does or doesn't happen to their own body

Absolutely - as long as its only her own body.

Hollister11 · 07-10-2017 05:47AM

uch wrote: »

Complete Bollocks

Any woman should have any choice over what does or doesn't happen to their own body

No she shouldn't. Not if she's killing a child basically

Annasopra · 07-10-2017 07:44AM

osarusan wrote: »

I thought the citizens assembly recommended abortion on request up to 14 or 16 weeks (can't remember which) as well as later times for other reasons (health, etc)

The IT is asking for opinions on abortions a time of up to 22 weeks.

The most debated issue is going to be where the limit sits for abortion on request. I'm happy with 14-16 weeks, but not happy with 24-26 weeks, for example, and I imagine that many people will feel the same - the later that limit goes, the more support will drop.

If and how the referendum (or accompanying legislation) deals with such limits will be crucial.

I think it is crazy to have time limits in the constitution. The legislature should deal with it.

thee glitz · 07-10-2017 08:35AM

gctest50 wrote: »

It implies that giving the choice, I’d have chosen to abort him,” the statement read.

It's not an insult to mention DS in a debate on abortion - it's just not convenient for herself as she's a pro abortion rights campaigner. Meanwhile in Iceland, only 1 or 2 babies with Down's Syndrome are born each year - I wonder did she also mention that at the CA.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/iceland-downs-syndrome-no-children-born-first-country-world-screening-a7895996.html

suicide_circus · 07-10-2017 09:46AM

thee glitz wrote: »

It's not an insult to mention DS in a debate on abortion - it's just not convenient for herself as she's a pro abortion rights campaigner. Meanwhile in Iceland, only 1 or 2 babies with Down's Syndrome are born each year - I wonder did she also mention that at the CA.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/iceland-downs-syndrome-no-children-born-first-country-world-screening-a7895996.html

If and when a "gay gene" is found we can expect a decline in the gay population too, perhaps not in the west though.

nozzferrahhtoo · 07-10-2017 09:53AM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Where do you draw the line so. Who do you allow to live?

I think any instance of human consciousness or sentience is a moral entity to whom we should have moral and ethical concern.

A fetus at 12 or 16 weeks when pretty much all abortions by choice happen, is not such an entity.

thee glitz wrote: »

Ending a life is no trivial matter.

Isnt it? We do it all the time. When we swat flies, cut down trees, make cattle into meals, cure diseases. We are trivially killing life all the time. Unless you are some mix of Vegan and Jain it is entirely likely you are killing life on a trivial whim daily.

When some particular life however suddenly becomes important to us it pays to identify how, why and when this happens. To identify what it is we are actually mediating higher levels of moral concern on.

Not many people seem to be willing to ask that question. I have however and the answers I found in doing so led me to things that the fetus at 12 weeks and 16 weeks (for example) simply lack not just slightly, but ENTIRELY.

So as you keep declaring "No justifying is possible" I can only respond "No justification is required".

thee glitz wrote: »

To me, the faculties of sentience and consciousness don't define what is and is not human life

Then by all means explore what does. Because human consciousness and sentience seems to me to be the ONLY Thing that differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom in any meaningful way.

Not only do I believe we attribute rights TO it, but I also believe rights and morality and ethics comes FROM it. Where would rights and morality and ethics even exist in this world if the sun rose tomorrow on a world devoid of human consciousness and sentience?

Short of inventing some god for which there is no substantiation as to it's existence...... it all comes from us.... from the very thing that makes us "human". And if it only comes from that faculty then I do not think it a leap to suggest it is TO that faculty we apply it. And much human behavior and opinion seems to bear that out.

thee glitz wrote: »

I disagree, and believe that life begins at conception. If you say around 9-10 weeks, what exists in that time?

"life" exists all the way down. Life is a cycle. It exists before conception too in the parents and the gametes they produce. It is "life" all the way down.

But so is the rest of our world, from amoeba up to plant life and up to the higher apes. It is all "life". But the word "life" is to effete to get you anywhere useful. We kill it off all the time and use it for our own ends.

Clearly there is some instances of life that one tends to value above others. And rather than just throw the word "life" out time and time again as a catch all term, it behooves you to philosophically identify what that is, and why.

For me the abortion debate does not boil down to when "life" begins, but when the rise of an entity for whom we should have moral and ethical concern begins. You want to pretend the two are the same thing, but I am not seeing ANY reason to think they are.

suicide_circus wrote: »

If and when a "gay gene" is found we can expect a decline in the gay population too, perhaps not in the west though.

Thankfully there is no reason to expect a gay gene to be found, ever. While I believe homosexuality to be genetic, that is by no means the same thing as saying there is a gene for homosexuality.

07-10-2017 10:09AM

Tsipras wrote: »

I do have sympathy for any woman who hasn't planned it, and how I vote will depend on the limits (I've no idea what that will be but off the top of my head if it's in the first 2-3 weeks I'd probably vote yes but after that I'd definitely vote no)

What you're proposing is impossible though. By the time a woman misses her period she's already 4 weeks pregnant, as it's counted from the date of her last period. Allowing some time for thinking about her options and then making the appointment with the clinic, it would be 6 weeks at the earliest by the time she could have the abortion.

No disrespect to you personally, but I think comments like this show how misinformed a lot of people are on the medical facts around conception and the early stages of pregnancy. The CA proved that when presented with factual evidence, most people will lean pro-choice up to a reasonable time limit (around 12 weeks). Most countries in Europe provide abortion services on this basis, what is the uniquely Irish mental block when is comes to this issue?

thee glitz · 07-10-2017 11:23AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Isnt it? We do it all the time. When we swat flies, cut down trees, make cattle into meals, cure diseases. We are trivially killing life all the time. Unless you are some mix of Vegan and Jain it is entirely likely you are killing life on a trivial whim daily.

When some particular life however suddenly becomes important to us it pays to identify how, why and when this happens. To identify what it is we are actually mediating higher levels of moral concern on.

Not many people seem to be willing to ask that question. I have however and the answers I found in doing so led me to things that the fetus at 12 weeks and 16 weeks (for example) simply lack not just slightly, but ENTIRELY.

So as you keep declaring "No justifying is possible" I can only respond "No justification is required".

Then by all means explore what does. Because human consciousness and sentience seems to me to be the ONLY Thing that differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom in any meaningful way.

Not only do I believe we attribute rights TO it, but I also believe rights and morality and ethics comes FROM it. Where would rights and morality and ethics even exist in this world if the sun rose tomorrow on a world devoid of human consciousness and sentience?

Short of inventing some god for which there is no substantiation as to it's existence...... it all comes from us.... from the very thing that makes us "human". And if it only comes from that faculty then I do not think it a leap to suggest it is TO that faculty we apply it. And much human behavior and opinion seems to bear that out.

"life" exists all the way down. Life is a cycle. It exists before conception too in the parents and the gametes they produce. It is "life" all the way down.

But so is the rest of our world, from amoeba up to plant life and up to the higher apes. It is all "life". But the word "life" is to effete to get you anywhere useful. We kill it off all the time and use it for our own ends.

Clearly there is some instances of life that one tends to value above others. And rather than just throw the word "life" out time and time again as a catch all term, it behooves you to philosophically identify what that is, and why.

You got there end the end - yes, I'm talking about human life. Consciousness and sentience represent a convenient post to hang your coat on - you can then work backwards to find the path there. They don't guarantee that a person will be born alive or that their continued development won't pose a serious risk to the life of their mother, let alone be a valued member of society.

For me the abortion debate does not boil down to when "life" begins, but when the rise of an entity for whom we should have moral and ethical concern begins. You want to pretend the two are the same thing, but I am not seeing ANY reason to think they are.

Oh you can't go killing that 16 week old fetus - I was just about to have a stimulating intellectual discussion with it on the intricacies of conducting heart surgery in space... You value consciousness and sentience, but don't respect the right for that to be allowed to develop where it otherwise would. That's the bit I don't get.

Thankfully there is no reason to expect a gay gene to be found, ever. While I believe homosexuality to be genetic, that is by no means the same thing as saying there is a gene for homosexuality.

Not with an attitude like that! Why is that to be thankful for - don't we want to discover all we can, expanding the body of human knowledge? Seriously though - it could be genetic, but we'd still never expect to be able to see it in genes?

gctest50 · 07-10-2017 11:28AM

Yay

boards.ie got another new signup

thee glitz · 07-10-2017 11:39AM

gctest50 wrote: »

Yay boards.ie got another new signup

repost

thee glitz · 07-10-2017 12:00PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Why? Do you think a person who has a liberal view of abortion would pose a risk to her or something ?

I would deem them to be mentally incapacitated and/or have a very warped moral compass. In short, I couldn't in conscience leave a child in their care.

Abortions for only a select few, citizens assembly wide of mark

Comments