The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

GritBiscuit · 17-10-2017 11:53AM

The eighth has to be repealed/significantly altered to allow for better, workable situation.

When prosecutions around abortion can potentially draw a higher sentence than that for the rape that necessitated it, you have to put your hands up and admit the law - that derives from the constitution - is not working.

If it is common place to ignore specific legislation and the legal ramifications in order that justice and the common good be seen to be served, you have to put your hands up and admit that the current system does not work.

No-one can look at the current situation, legally or constitutionally; with all the blind eye turning, the pre and post abortion state involvement and ECHR declarations and still claim the current state of affairs is working...

Akrasia · 17-10-2017 11:57AM

There was a priest on a radio show recently talking about why he believes abortion is wrong

He basically said that Life begins at conception and that only god has the right to choose who lives and who dies.

This got me thinking about the free will debate and the problem of evil.

Whenever a christian talks about why god allows people to do evil, they always say it's because god wants people to have free will. If people were prevented by god from making immoral choices, they would not be able to freely choose to be good. They extend this argument to the murder of innocents. God chooses to not protect innocent people from murderers because to do so, would restrict the freedom of choice of the murderer (yes i know it's a stupid argument)

So the next time a christian tells you that abortion should be illegal, ask them about god's position on free will.

If god exists and an embryo is a fully actualised person, aborting that pregnancy is the best thing that could possibly happen to that 'person'. It is a guaranteed one way ticket to paradise (unless you believe in limbo in which case god is a monster) So the 'baby' is not harmed, and the person who had the abortion was exercising her free will as god itself intended her to do.

SafeSurfer · 17-10-2017 12:00PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

People in sports wear protective gear. They still sometimes get injured. People on fishing boats often wear life jackets. Many of them still drown. Police wear stab jackets but sometimes still get injured in the line of duty.

The list goes on. It is possible to take many precautions and still end up in a situation where you need medical or other intervention or help. And at that point the help should be offered, rather than sanctimonious admonishments from an imaginary pedestal on how they got there in the first place.

How many people who died from their nut allergy, do you think, did so because they were not trying hard enough to avoid nuts? Or do you think, maybe just maybe, that some people despite all their efforts, manage to get exposed to nuts all the same? And would we stand over them with the epi-pen in hand and say "tut tut tut you clearly were not trying hard enough" or would we simply give them the procedure they need and leave the sanctimonious judgmental clap trap at home where it belongs?

Not sure what the whatiffery achieves other than to allow you to make up a narrative on how you imagine they would behave had things been other than they are.

The fact is on the abortion issue many people have concerns about one, the other, or BOTH of the things you mention. That is they are concerned about allowing abortions in cases of medical or emotional need (FFA, Rape and so forth) and/OR they are concerned about allowing abortion entirely by choice for people who wish it, at stages when there is no reason to hold moral and ethical concern for the fetus.

Neither are mutually exclusive, and support of either does not mean you are actually cloak and dagger in support of the other and do not wish to admit it, or whatever your dark imaginary narrative is today.

It is perfectly possible, moral, and ok to argue for one in one context and the other in another. Not only can they, they SHOULD do so. It is the right thing to do. Much as you might wish to spin it to seem otherwise.

There are ways to avoid getting pregnant if it may kill you. There is personal choice and personal responsibility, especially if it is a matter of life or death. The examples you give about fishermen wearing life jackets etc are not relevant to the example of someone who will die if she becomes pregnant. There are completely foolproof ways to avoid becoming pregnant.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-10-2017 12:02PM

January wrote: »

Women are having abortions every day in Ireland, women travel every day to England to have abortions. Why should we be forced to continue to travel. Abortion is happening already, whether any of you like it or not. Why shouldn't it become legal here?

While I am pro choice and while I understand the sentiment of your post, I could probably serve up some of the Devils Avocado on it too.

Lets use a slightly ridiculous but illuminating analogy. I will copy and paste your paragraph and change a few words:

Children are sexually abused every day in Ireland, people travel every day to poor countries to have access to children. Why should they be forced to continue to travel. This rape is happening already, whether any of you like it or not. Why shouldn't it become legal here?

The point of the analogy being that we should probably mediate what is legal in our own country based on the arguments for or against it in our own country. It has never seemed like a pro choice argument I would want to use to suggest that because someone can travel to get X, we might as well just automatically allow X here.

I think there are enough really good arguments for allowing choice based abortion in Ireland. And no arguments AGAINST it appear to be forthcoming except misuses of emotive terms like "murder" and "baby".

So what people can get access to by going elsewhere should not be relevant.

Also if we were too allow for abortion by choice up to 16 weeks, for example, which many people seem comfortable with....... would an argument against that not be "ah but anyone who wants it at 26 weeks is now forced to travel to canada, so why not just allow that here too?"

So not only do I fear the "What you can travel for" argument is not a useful one, it could also be used AGAINST many of the pro choice positions we have people arguing for.

TLDR it should not be about whether we are forcing people to travel. It should be about what product or service we as a society/country feel ethically and morally comfortable with offering HERE.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-10-2017 12:06PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

There are ways to avoid getting pregnant if it may kill you.

Not really short of sterilisations or complete chastity. And even the latter does not work when you are raped. Otherwise all you have are ways to modify the probabilities of getting pregnant. Even people using MULTIPLE contraceptive methodologies still get pregnant sometimes. If everyone in the world tomorrow started combining condoms, the pill, and the withdrawl method..... you will still get SOME statistical quantity of people getting pregnant.

So lording their choices and responsibilities over them is just judgemental nonsense from an imaginary pedastal. People get pregnant despite doing many things to avoid it.

But aside from chastity and sterilisation by all means list the "completely foolproof ways to avoid becoming pregnant." and maybe also cite the statistics you have access to on the efficacy of each methodology. I suspect you will not find many that are 100%, but by all means list them if you do.

dudara · 17-10-2017 12:10PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

There are completely foolproof ways to avoid becoming pregnant.

As far as I'm aware the only "completely foolproof" ways would be total abstinence from sexual activities or a hysterectomy. Neither are very desirable. Are there other options available?

Women get pregnant even despite their best efforts. Even tubal ligation is not 100% effective. I don't like the arguments that effectively say "it's your fault for getting pregnant"

SafeSurfer · 17-10-2017 12:12PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not really short of sterilisations or complete chastity. And even the latter does not work when you are raped. Otherwise all you have are ways to modify the probabilities of getting pregnant. Even people using MULTIPLE contraceptive methodologies still get pregnant sometimes. If everyone in the world tomorrow started combining condoms, the pill, and the withdrawl method..... you will still get SOME statistical quantity of people getting pregnant.

So lording their choices and responsibilities over them is just judgemental nonsense from an imaginary pedastal. People get pregnant despite doing many things to avoid it.

But aside from chastity and sterilisation by all means list the "completely foolproof ways to avoid becoming pregnant." and maybe also cite the statistics you have access to on the efficacy of each methodology. I suspect you will not find many that are 100%, but by all means list them if you do.

So basically you want me to list a third method of avoiding pregnancy if it could kill you?

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-10-2017 12:13PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So basically you want me to list a third method of avoiding pregnancy if it could kill you?

I basically want you to list the things YOU just said exist. Because aside from calling them "foolproof" you are entirely unclear on what you are talking about at all.

Akrasia · 17-10-2017 12:16PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not really short of sterilisations or complete chastity. And even the latter does not work when you are raped. Otherwise all you have are ways to modify the probabilities of getting pregnant. Even people using MULTIPLE contraceptive methodologies still get pregnant sometimes. If everyone in the world tomorrow started combining condoms, the pill, and the withdrawl method..... you will still get SOME statistical quantity of people getting pregnant.

So lording their choices and responsibilities over them is just judgemental nonsense from an imaginary pedastal. People get pregnant despite doing many things to avoid it.

But aside from chastity and sterilisation by all means list the "completely foolproof ways to avoid becoming pregnant." and maybe also cite the statistics you have access to on the efficacy of each methodology. I suspect you will not find many that are 100%, but by all means list them if you do.

Not even vasectomies are are 100% reliable. Sometimes they can spontaneously reverse

SafeSurfer · 17-10-2017 12:19PM

Akrasia wrote: »

There was a priest on a radio show recently talking about why he believes abortion is wrong

He basically said that Life begins at conception and that only god has the right to choose who lives and who dies.

This got me thinking about the free will debate and the problem of evil.

Whenever a christian talks about why god allows people to do evil, they always say it's because god wants people to have free will. If people were prevented by god from making immoral choices, they would not be able to freely choose to be good. They extend this argument to the murder of innocents. God chooses to not protect innocent people from murderers because to do so, would restrict the freedom of choice of the murderer (yes i know it's a stupid argument)

So the next time a christian tells you that abortion should be illegal, ask them about god's position on free will.

If god exists and an embryo is a fully actualised person, aborting that pregnancy is the best thing that could possibly happen to that 'person'. It is a guaranteed one way ticket to paradise (unless you believe in limbo in which case god is a monster) So the 'baby' is not harmed, and the person who had the abortion was exercising her free will as god itself intended her to do.

Your arguments are so persuasive. You are surely winning over voters to the pro choosing abortion position.

Can I use the same argument the next time a christian tells me that murder should be illegal?

You say the "baby" is not harmed. Having your brains sucked out with a vacuum could be considered "harmed". But by all means defend your position by any means necessary. I am sure there are some straws that have yet to be grasped.

....... · 17-10-2017 12:23PM

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia · 17-10-2017 12:23PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Your arguments are so persuasive. You are surely winning over voters to the pro choosing abortion position.

Can I use the same argument the next time a christian tells me that murder should be illegal?

You say the "baby" is not harmed. Having your brains sucked out with a vacuum could be considered "harmed". But by all means defend your position by any means necessary. I am sure there are some straws that have yet to be grasped.

This isn't the main reason I support a womans right to choose, it is more of an aside regarding the inconsistency of the christian position against abortion.

SafeSurfer · 17-10-2017 12:30PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I basically want you to list the things YOU just said exist. Because aside from calling them "foolproof" you are entirely unclear on what you are talking about at all.

You do know there is a difference between chastity and abstinence? But of course you use the term chastity as a quasi religious insult to a method of avoiding pregnancy.
If pregnancy could kill me I would be on the pill after both myself and my partner were sterilised, use condoms, spermicide and the withdrawal method and probably drastically reduce the frequency of sex to birthdays and anniversaries.
But of course thats not the solution. Abortion is the solution. Abortion is always the solution and we wont be a free and functioning society until anyone can get a free abortion whenever they want for whatever reason they want.

xckjoo · 17-10-2017 12:31PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

There are completely foolproof ways to avoid becoming pregnant.

Anal?

....... · 17-10-2017 12:35PM

This post has been deleted.

SafeSurfer · 17-10-2017 12:38PM

Akrasia wrote: »

This isn't the main reason I support a womans right to choose, it is more of an aside regarding the inconsistency of the christian position against abortion.

What inconsistency? You are using the terms christian and catholic interchangeably which is misleading. The catholic church doesn't object to a woman's right to choose to abort her baby for fun. It is because they believe that human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

rainbow kirby · 17-10-2017 12:38PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You do know there is a difference between chastity and abstinence? But of course you use the term chastity as a quasi religious insult to a method of avoiding pregnancy.
If pregnancy could kill me I would be on the pill after both myself and my partner were sterilised, use condoms, spermicide and the withdrawal method and probably drastically reduce the frequency of sex to birthdays and anniversaries.
But of course thats not the solution. Abortion is the solution. Abortion is always the solution and we wont be a free and functioning society until anyone can get a free abortion whenever they want for whatever reason they want.

If you're a hardcore enough RC, "chastity" for married couples involves making babies, not avoiding them :pac:

The concept of abstinence in a healthy, happy marriage or long term relationship is completely unrealistic and if you think it is then you're on another planet.

SafeSurfer · 17-10-2017 12:41PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If pregnancy is going to kill you I am sure you could get whatever treatment you want to avoid it. If I have ovarian cancer my ovaries will be removed. Continue along this cul de sac if you wish but it is not an argument for abortion.

SafeSurfer · 17-10-2017 12:43PM

rainbow kirby wrote: »

If you're a hardcore enough RC, "chastity" for married couples involves making babies, not avoiding them :pac:

The concept of abstinence in a healthy, happy marriage or long term relationship is completely unrealistic and if you think it is then you're on another planet.

Are you serious? Do you think there are zero happy, fulfilled, contented relationships that are non sexual?

It used to be the church that were obsessed with sex, now it is their opponents.

GritBiscuit · 17-10-2017 12:49PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Are you serious? Do you think there are zero happy, fulfilled, contented relationships that are non sexual?

Are you serious? How many of those non-sexual relationships are reliant on contraception and thus relevant to this discussion?

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-10-2017 12:50PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You do know there is a difference between chastity and abstinence?

There is but none relevant here. The point I was making was clear. Short of sterilisations or simply never having sex, there is no guaranteed method to engage in sex and prevent pregnancy. That is a point you can either address directly, or dodge by instead moaning about the word I used while making it instead.

None of the things you DO list however are guaranteed. Condoms. Reducing the amount of sex. None of it. They all occasionally result in pregnancy.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

But of course thats not the solution. Abortion is the solution. Abortion is always the solution

It is not a solution and certainly not "always" a solution. It is an OPTION. An option that can and should be available when all the NOT GURANTEED preventitive measures you listed fail.

You can moan all you like about what fools you think people must be to get pregnant, but the fact is they do. So rather than lord the causes over them from an imaginary pedastal of moral superiority..... you could engage with the reasoning as to why abortion should not THEN be an option for them.

Tigger · 17-10-2017 12:53PM

ok ive heard enough on whatvpeople think should be available
i have my own opinionnbut i dont think anyone here is gonna have an epiphany so i have a secondary question
lets assume that abortion is now available, and lets assume that the 3,500 irish women having abortions will continue but now in Ireland
should it be in private or public care, if private then are we goning to have clinics popping up in all the large regional centers.
if public where will the extra capacity come from? the waiting list would in my opinion have to be very short for obvious reasons. will we have people on the media telling us that a 8 week waiting list for abortions is unacceptable. should it be a free procedure ? means tested ?

if it is free and public are doctors and nurses really going to want to work in tgat field? can they opt out. im pro choice with reservations but if i worked hard to be a doctor or a nurse and got offered an abortion job id decline mainly because i just dont think id get job satisfaction.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-10-2017 01:01PM

Tigger wrote: »

should it be in private or public care

To be honest I do not know. I also have not fully thought out how it should be financed. Some people want it to be free. Which in some ways would be nice, especially given many people seek abortion BECAUSE they are in financially bad situations.

But on the other hand I see the argument that abortion is, in the cases you are talking about, an entirely ELECTIVE procedure. So there are arguments that come with that too.

The only thing I can really answer your question with therefore is another question. Why the "or"? Are there not already many medical things in Ireland that are done in BOTH? Why would it need to be one or the other?

Tigger · 17-10-2017 01:05PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To be honest I do not know. I also have not fully thought out how it should be financed. Some people want it to be free. Which in some ways would be nice, especially given many people seek abortion BECAUSE they are in financially bad situations.

But on the other hand I see the argument that abortion is, in the cases you are talking about, an entirely ELECTIVE procedure. So there are arguments that come with that too.

The only thing I can really answer your question with therefore is another question. Why the "or"? Are there not already many medical things in Ireland that are done in BOTH? Why would it need to be one or the other?

the two toer health system ? it will of course be in private if its innpublic so i suppose i should have said should it be private only or should it also be also public .

SafeSurfer · 17-10-2017 01:20PM

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Are you serious? How many of those non-sexual relationships are reliant on contraception and thus relevant to this discussion?

Non sexual relationships, by there nature are not dependent on contraception. They are relevant to the discussion because a poster said;

"The concept of abstinence in a healthy, happy marriage or long term relationship is completely unrealistic and if you think it is then you're on another planet".

gctest50 · 17-10-2017 01:22PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Are you serious? Do you think there are zero happy, fulfilled, contented relationships that are non sexual?

It used to be the church that were obsessed with sex, now it is their opponents.

Would you like if these "happy, fulfilled, contented relationships that are non sexual" were more common ?

SafeSurfer · 17-10-2017 01:27PM

gctest50 wrote: »

Would you like if these "happy, fulfilled, contented relationships that are non sexual" were more common ?

It makes no difference to me, but I understand your implication, that because I am not in favour of abortion I must be a knuckle dragging, veil wearing catholic who only approves of sex on the first full moon of every second month.

seamus · 17-10-2017 01:33PM

Tigger wrote: »

the two toer health system ? it will of course be in private if its innpublic so i suppose i should have said should it be private only or should it also be also public .

Your issue then is that abortion becomes available only to the privileged, and women who cannot afford the procedure may be forced by economic hardship to carry the child to term.

This is a double-whammy; not only will she have to carry the child to term, but then she will have the economic burden of caring for that child. In the case where a woman is seeking an abortion due to a FFA or a serious genetic condition, the costs may be enormous and far beyond what she will ever be able to handle. Both she and her child are doomed to a poverty which they cannot escape from.

Ultimately if abortion is private-only, or an expensive procedure, then nothing has improved. The situation right now is that you can get an abortion, if you have the money. All you would be doing is making that slightly easier for wealthy people.

There is a strong economic and humanitarian argument for providing abortions for free to women who do not have the means to pay for one. In effect, these are the women who may need one the most.
So by denying them access to the service, not only will they personally be under a tougher economic burden than wealthier women, there will be a higher social cost too, as the state and the woman's community will have to bear the economic and social burden of the child.

Of course, publically-funded abortions should not exist in isolation. Data from other countries indicates that where publically-funded abortions are available, abortion rates are higher than where they're strictly paid for. Duh.

But if contraception is completely free and sex education is universal, then abortion rates drop below the rates in areas where abortion is free and contraception is not. Unsurprisingly, women choose contraception above abortions where that choice exists.

So realistically, instead of just "free abortions for everyone!", contraception should be freely available to all men and women under 25 (or even 30?), and to medical card holders above that. Then combined with a sensible approach to providing abortions for free where the economic need is genuine; such as under-18s, students and those on low incomes.

It's a complicated topic.

There's not really a huge issue with waiting lists and such. Maternity hospitals are busy, but don't have the luxury of waiting lists, so they manage their patient care differently. Abortions would be handled by maternity outpatient clinics.

gctest50 · 17-10-2017 01:34PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

But of course you use the term chastity as a quasi religious insult to a method of avoiding pregnancy...........

SafeSurfer wrote: »

It makes no
difference to me, but I understand your implication, that because I am not in favour of abortion I must be a knuckle dragging, veil wearing catholic who only approves of sex on the first full moon of every second month.

What's with the sense of persecution ?

Would you like if these "happy, fulfilled, contented relationships that are non sexual" were more common ?

SafeSurfer · 17-10-2017 01:44PM

gctest50 wrote: »

What's with the sense of persecution ?

Would you like if these "happy, fulfilled, contented relationships that are non sexual" were more common ?

I really don't understand your obsession with asking me again my position. I have already said it makes no difference to me.

My point is that in a happy, fulfilled, contented relationship if pregnancy could cause the death of one partner I would feel it unreasonable for the other partner to demand sex if there was a risk, no matter how small, as previous posters have mentioned, of death.

Do you think is reasonable for a man to demand sex if a pregnancy would result in his partner's death?

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments