The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

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.

....... 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Sheeps wrote: »

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

As if money was the only thing in consideration though?

Firstly this is basically an invasive surgery. Which can come with all kinds of side effects and emotions. Do you not think a woman might prefer to be in familiar and comfortable surroundings?

Secondly a lot of women change their mind. However since the time and effort to travel to the UK is high for some women in financial or other duress..... some may feel compelled by thinking "Well I am here now, I best go through with it" because they know they might not be able to come back again if they RE change their mind.

Third I am not convinced it even WOULD be cheaper. Ryanair and low fares airlines have us thinking flights are cheap, but when you add up all the associated costs, accommodation, foods, travel from isolated airports no where near the city they are named for and so forth.... it can really add up.

Fourth who even cares what is cheaper? The question is should we as a nation be offering this service at all, or not. That is a stand alone moral and ethical question and to hell with the costs of getting it elsewhere.

Fifth, it might be cheaper for her to travel ALONE to the UK. But why do we want her to be alone when electing for such a procedure. Might she not want people with her? What of the costs of that?

Sixth, you assume the procedure goes well. What if it does not. Said women is then in a foreign country, suffering from medical complications. Would she not be better off at home near her own hospitals, and on her own medical insurance and so forth?

Should I go on, or is this enough to show just how poorly thought out your comment was?