The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

This post has been deleted.

Martina1991

keano_afc wrote: »

Much like most pro-choice people will love it if she commits suicide to prove their point.
Your turn. I like this game where we throw wild accusations and assumptions around.

I used to be pro-life and now consider myself pro-choice.

I, nor anyone else would wish the suicide of anyone else. What is wrong with you?

I came around to the decision of pro-choice because who the fvck am I to tell my sister/ cousin/ friend/ neighbor/ teacher/ boss what to do with THEIR body.

Terminations happen every day. A sad reality for pro-life supporters but it is a fact.

They will continue to happen. Irish women will continue to go abroad to have them when they feel they have no other option.

Legalising abortion, either entirely or on medical grounds is a right that is already available elsewhere and should be available here.

keano_afc

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sadly, many of them really will be delighted if that this is her fate. They would love that to happen to all unmarried pregnant people.

keano_afc wrote: »

Much like most pro-choice people will love it if she commits suicide to prove their point.

Your turn. I like this game where we throw wild accusations and assumptions around.

We're playing a game where you make a ridiculous assumption and then counteract it with one of your own.

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"Sadly, many of them really will be delighted if that this is her fate. They would love that to happen to all unmarried pregnant people".

Thats not fact, thats a biased assumption based on the poster's personal opinion of pro-life supporters.

This post has been deleted.

January wrote: »

I'm sorry, how do you, I, or anyone else except the girl and her mother know how this story has turned out? Your perceived 'happy ending' could be very far from the truth. Just because the baby has remained in the care of the young girl and her family, does not mean that it's a happy ending for anyone involved in what happened here.

I'm not saying that the baby isn't loved btw, just that it could be very different from the happy ending you're painting here.

Of course it's a happy ending. Both human beings involved are alive. We can work from there. If two people were in a car crash and both were saved and someone said that was a happy ending, wouldn't you think it bizarre for someone to suggest it may not be a happy ending?

eviltwin

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course it's a happy ending. Both human beings involved are alive. We can work from there. If two people were in a car crash and both were saved and someone said that was a happy ending, wouldn't you think it bizarre for someone to suggest it may not be a happy ending?

I wonder does the girl involved share your opinion.

Martina1991

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course it's a happy ending. Both human beings involved are alive. We can work from there. If two people were in a car crash and both were saved and someone said that was a happy ending, wouldn't you think it bizarre for someone to suggest it may not be a happy ending?

We? Society? The state?
The state let this girl down by not providing the mental health support she needed before this pregnancy. It fails people every day.

Someone very dear to me suffers from mental health issues. They admit and seek help when they they feel worse but the buck stops when they see a doctor. "Take these sleeping tablets and be on your way".

Many people survive car crashes but many then have permanent physical and mental disabilities from them. They do not have the life they had before the crash. Everything has changed.

Everything has changed for that young girl and she had no say in it. That was her car crash.

This post has been deleted.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course it's a happy ending. Both human beings involved are alive.

If that is your ONLY criteria for "Happy ending" then sure, you got what YOU wanted. She probably didn't though.

And I, unlike others, am not about to make those assumptions in her absence, on her behalf. Because from what little I know so far, she did not want to be a mother. Just like many women and girls do not want to form and mother a child that is a daily reminder of how they were raped, used, and impregnated against their will.

And I would prefer to judge the "happy ending" based on HER situation and what SHE wants / wanted. You appear to be basing it on what YOU wanted to happen. Which is a level of selfishness I am afraid I can not employ.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

She could have instead happily ambled up to a clinic and CHOSEN to have an abortion without having to prove herself to be suicidal to do it.

"Happily ambled" up suicidal?? Wtf. That's prochoice logic right there, folks.

Anyway, she was 25 weeks pregnant. Even your 'fuzzy moral regard' for devolving human babies kicks in before then.

I mean, aren't you on record as saying you'd support laws that would make procuring non-therapeutic abortions at that stage of a pregnancy illegal? So in the context of this particular case you are not prochoice at all, are you? Assuming rape, ffa mother's health etc are not factors of course.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

"Happily ambled" up suicidal?? Wtf. That's prochoice logic right there, folks.

Wow that was quite a distance you just missed the point by. For example would she have been suicidal IF she had had the OPTION to amble up and obtain an abortion at will? Or was her suicidal status caused or compounded by the pointless red tape she had to crash through to get even close to where she probably wanted to be?

You are trying to PRETEND I was putting "happily" and "suicidal" in the same person at the same time or something? Your desperation if fetid. No, I was suggesting one might not have been as bad, or not been there at all, had she had the other option.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Anyway, she was 25 weeks pregnant. Even your 'fuzzy moral regard' for devolving human babies kicks in before then.

Nothing fuzzy about my position save for your understanding of it it seems. But she was 25 weeks at the point in question. I am suggesting that it is possible, in a country where she had a choice up to 12 or 16 weeks, that she never would have reached the point she was at at 25 weeks..... having to present as suicidal, get multiple evaluations, fall into the media eye, and more.

Do not pretend she just suddenly materialized out of thin air, at 25 weeks, with no back story or narrative that led up to that point. A narrative that potentially could have been HEAVILY altered in the context of a society with choice based term limited abortion.

rainbow kirby

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This. The 8th is an extremely blunt instrument and doesn't take into considering a multitude of grey areas, even in wanted, planned pregnancies. Having a very slow miscarriage? Let's just wait even longer rather than performing that D&C. Feck the risks, as long as there's the tiniest of foetal heart tone detectable we won't finish out the inevitable. Suffer a complication which permanently affects your health but probably won't kill you? Tough, the Irish system doesn't care about the effect that it might have on your existing family and on your overall health. Serious mental health difficulties? We'll just lock you up and use delaying tactics, we might even force feed you if you go on hunger strike because the system has screwed you over already.

There is no regard for women and their wishes in the Irish system. While the 8th is in place the law treats us as mere vessels.

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm sure all the pro-life people who are delighted with her happy ending will also be happy that she might never get to go to college now, might never get to pursue her dreams and might end up as a single mother receiving welfare until the child is old enough that she can get part time work and eek out a survival that way.

What pathetic nonsense. Lots of young single mothers get to do those things. I went to school with a few. I see their children regularly. Now adults. This is not Sub Saharan Africa. We have help in place for young pregnant mothers and if we need more, lets get more. I fail to see how killing a healthy baby solves anything.

seamus wrote: »

Well, typically they would prefer that she didn't receive welfare. Usually a strong correlation between being pro-life and anti-welfare. Many are driven less by concern for the unborn and more by the belief that people should be punished for mistakes as fully as possible.

More drivel. Only the other day I was highlighting on a thread in AH how people on welfare / disability live on less than people think given that a large chunk of it goes towards paying undeclared rents (given that the caps are so low). To suggest people who are against abortion (be that always, just late stage or only when they are carried out for non-therapeutic reasons) would typically "prefer that she didn't receive welfare" is a ridiculous agenda saturated rubbish.

A few of you are showing your true colours with these statements. What's wrong? Your arguments not holding up to much scrutiny and so you have to start attacking and discrediting those who disagree with you? I guess so.

cnocbui

The only sensible proposition would be to just remove any mention of abortion from the constitution whatsoever. Fealty to the Catholic Church also, while you're at it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What pathetic nonsense.

Except it is really not. YOU are declaring it to be a happy ending SOLELY because two people are alive. Nothing else.

Think of the potential other narratives beside your own so limited one.

She has been made suicidal, become the mother to a child she did not want, she might have to alter her entire life plan, she now has to face the struggles of finding a partner in life as a single parent, and much more. Not to mention having to parent a child created in circumstances we will not go into here.

The child is the child of a single parent, one that is potentially suicidal, starting life as entirely unwanted, and with a father that a relationship with is likely to be..... dubious.

They could potentially BOTH be very very miserable for the rest of whatever their lives are to be. But sure they are both alive so at least YOU are happy huh? That's all that matters really. To you at least.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I fail to see how killing a healthy baby solves anything.

Had she been living in a country with choice based abortion with term limits she would not have "killed a healthy baby". She would have terminated a fetus before it formed into what can meaningfully be described as a healthy baby.

Tearing up a blue print is very different to knocking down a house.

This post has been deleted.

January

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course it's a happy ending. Both human beings involved are alive. We can work from there. If two people were in a car crash and both were saved and someone said that was a happy ending, wouldn't you think it bizarre for someone to suggest it may not be a happy ending?

Ah, forced birth at its finest.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

10 thanks this post got (and counting). Sums this thread up.

Go and read the user's post again, particularly the line you didn't quote:

keano_afc wrote: »

Your turn. I like this game where we throw wild accusations and assumptions around.

You see? They didn't get it anyway. It was a DELIBERATE "wild accusation".

This post has been deleted.

Sheeps

Ryan Air flights to the UK for an abortion would probably be a lot cheaper than getting an abortion here, just saying.

mahamageehad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

1 was my preference until the Citizen's Assembly report, now I like 6, their recommendation.

Based on what I heard of the comments after the vote yesterday, most seem to prefer option 1, despite the CA recommendations. There was a worry about inserting anything else into the constitution and it has been suggested that perhaps the legal burden of certainty was stressed too heavily in the CA. It'll be interesting to see how the conversations progress.

eviltwin

Sheeps wrote: »

Ryan Air flights to the UK for an abortion would probably be a lot cheaper than getting an abortion here, just saying.

Not for an FFA. It would be free here as opposed to the thousands it costs to go to the UK. The money is just one aspect though, even if you can afford to travel its still a physically demanding trip that involves unnecessary surgery. There is no aftercare when the woman returns. It is a ridiculous situation.

mahamageehad

seamus wrote: »

There is no provision in law or the constitution for a "preferendum", it's not legally possible to do.

At best you could hold a non-binding plebiscite to ask the public which wording they would prefer to then have a referendum on. But that seems wasteful - especially when the government could just ignore the outcome and choose their own wording.
The citizen's assembly has already done the selection of the wording by proxy, and that's the way it should go really.

It probably will - when you have a committee where all of the experts are on one side making the same recommendation and the only committee members proposing anything else are two religious ignoramuses with no expertise in the area, it's clear what needs to be done.

Yeah I saw that clarified earlier today that a preferendum would be unconstitutional. This guy gives a good legal rundown on the options, 1 and 6 being easiest to implement. https://medium.com/@WilliamQuill/referendum-should-take-abortion-out-of-the-courts-4abb791614ed

January

Sheeps wrote: »

Ryan Air flights to the UK for an abortion would probably be a lot cheaper than getting an abortion here, just saying.

For those who can travel, it costs over 600 euro to get an abortion in England, that's without travel costs, accommodation, the cost of taking time off work, and that's just costs in euros. There's also the hassle of having to get other children minded, actually taking that time off work (making up an excuse at short notice to your boss) etc.

And that's just for an abortion before 16 weeks, for FFA you're looking at double that cost.

nice_guy80

I can imagine how lonely a journey that must be over to the uk for a procedure like that

just because its prohibited in Ireland

January

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I can imagine how lonely a journey that must be over to the uk for a procedure like that

just because its prohibited in Ireland

Yeah often they can't afford to pay for another person to travel with them, so have to travel alone. Which presents its own set of problems also, if one becomes unwell while travelling then they've no one to look after them.