The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

rainbow kirby · 14-12-2017 04:03PM

Belfast wrote: »

I was surprised they proposed such a radical change.
I think a more gradual approach of amendment the 8th amendment would stand a better chance of passing.

When faced with accurate information the Citizen's Assembly and the Oireachtas committee have come to very similar conclusions. They haven't pulled this recommendation out of their asses.

AnGaelach · 14-12-2017 04:04PM

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

You stated that the most important issue for pro-life people is the duty of care towards the unborn, as opposed to the duty of care towards the pregnant, insofar as it relates to whether or not to repeal the eighth.

All I asked you is whether, with the eighth in place, you think that duty of care is being met seeing as...how can I put this in a way that won't seem like a loaded pro-choice tricksy question....thousands of the unborn are being murdered every year, many of them in Ireland, with no prosecutions.

If you feel you can't answer that question then fine, keep ranting instead. Rephrase the question to your liking. Rant. Whatever.

Because it quite simply is a loaded question. If I say it isn't being met then you'll say it's useless anyway and we should scrap it (or accuse me of wanting to use women are brood mares, as has been done previously on boards). If I say yes, it becomes a "you only care about abortion in Ireland" and I'm accused of NIMBYism.

This is a tactic you learn to avoid in secondary school debating.

AnGaelach · 14-12-2017 04:05PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

The key phrase being: "along the lines of the British model."

What the Assembly and the Committee has recommended is not along the lines of the British model. It's more akin to the continental European model, which is typically abortion as a matter of choice the first 10 to 13 weeks.

The Irish Times polls don't contradict the Red C poll, because the polls ask different questions.

Yes, because the electorate is going to be completely understanding of nuance. Any other polls we've seen by people other than Amnesty shows little to no support for abortion "without reason" or under socio-economic grounds. Picking AI's one (when they're as corrupt and insidious as Iona) is fallacious.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 14-12-2017 04:09PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because it quite simply is a loaded question. If I say it isn't being met then you'll say it's useless anyway and we should scrap it (or accuse me of wanting to use women are brood mares, as has been done previously on boards). If I say yes, it becomes a "you only care about abortion in Ireland" and I'm accused of NIMBYism.

This is a tactic you learn in secondary school debating.

How would you phrase that question in a way that would make you comfortable answering it? You surely feel one way or the other about it, and as you've said, it's an issue that's very important to anyone who's pro-life? If you can predict my responses and reject them anyway then why not just answer it?

end of the road · 14-12-2017 04:17PM

maxsmum wrote: »

This is exactly it. This is really all it comes down to. I find the image of men curled up in their beds at night worried that maybe some women somewhere might have an abortion so weird!

i certainly am not curled up in my bed of a night worrying about people having abortions. however, i do believe in our current stance where by the life of the unborn is given some protection within the irish state as much as is practical/possible, bar extreme circumstances, and i believe that should remain to be the case. if a guarantee that it would remain to be the case was given, then i could vote yes to repeal. if not, then i will vote no, as i cannot and will not vote yes to something that may allow for something i don't agree with, IE abortion on demand in this country.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well it does pay to consider how much a part of our culture it already is. Just because people currently seeking abortions might, for example, hop on a boat to England and do it there..... that does not make it NOT part of the culture HERE.

That said though, have you looked through the figures on abortion when choice based abortion is introduced to the society? You might find that quite often the figures go in the OPPOSITE direction that your concerns here suggest you imagine they would.

Should they though? On what philosophical basis? What is it you think "rights" are at the level of philosophy. How and why are they formed. To what exactly are they assigned and on what basis?

What is it about one piece of life that gives it "rights" that another piece of life does not? Why does the 12 week old fetus have a right to life when the cow about to become your next burger does not?

I fear a lot of people have a throw away sound bite approach to the deep philosophical concepts of rights, morality and ethics that is shown in your rather vague statement here.

the right to life is decided on the basis of morality and many other things. in this country, we believe the right of human beings to life from pre-birth to death is absolute bar extreme circumstances, IE the case where the mother's life is in danger in terms of the unborn. the philosophical argument for the right to life for humans already has been done and won in the case of this country.

AnGaelach · 14-12-2017 04:22PM

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

How would you phrase that question in a way that would make you comfortable answering it? You surely feel one way or the other about it, and as you've said, it's an issue that's very important to anyone who's pro-life? If you can predict my responses and reject them anyway then why not just answer it?

Speaking in a personal capacity, I believe it's irrelevant to this argument on whether or not the rights are being adequately protected by the State in regards to travel for abortion. It's irrelevant, because we're discussing the removal of the 8th not the strengthening of it, and the public wouldn't support a strengthening of it. We have to take a pinch of realism with the idealism. The 8th is more than the sum of its parts for the pro-life position. It ensures society doesn't condone abortions outright, it ensures a constitutional hurdle for any future backroom politicking that may occur, it recognises the limitation of State power with regards to travel, and it recognises the fundamental right to life (for if the right to life doesn't belong in the Constitution, why should the right to privacy or association or religion not be left to the Oireachtas to define?).

The 8th serves as a bulwark against both the encroachment of State power (in being allowed to define who does and doesn't get the right to life) and the insidious influence of foreign capital (whether from Republicans or Liberals) seeking to influence Irish society.

I am a moderate, I would have backed foetal abnormalities (though I have flirted with outright refusing to change because of the pro-choice sides actions). I was one of the people the pro-choice side could possibly have won over (or convinced not to vote) had the proposals not been so stark.

But I will not support removing the Article in its entirety, and I won't be persuaded to abstain when the result is going to be abortion "without reason". It's several steps too far, and it's why I have money on this being defeated. Not only because of the actions of the repeal side (like the African woman telling Irish men this was a woman's movement, or the young ones trying to organise a "shout your abortion" thing) but because the proposals themselves are repulsive to me. I don't think the right to extinguish an innocent life lies solely with the person carrying it, I don't think society should be splintered and fractured into its individual units so we can become a plastic version of society like America is or England has become.

Hooks Golf Handicap · 14-12-2017 04:26PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Anyone who uses the term "pure logic" tends to be a bit on the slow side.

AnGaelach old buddy . . . your personal attacks & aggressive pro-life posting style will only harden the resolve of pro-choice proponents.
You've done more harm than good for your cause here today, perhaps you should put the spade away & stop digging.

I would really really love if we could do an early postal vote on this referendum so when the pro-lifers hit your doorstep you could just say "sorry, already voted".

NuMarvel · 14-12-2017 04:31PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yes, because the electorate is going to be completely understanding of nuance. Any other polls we've seen by people other than Amnesty shows little to no support for abortion "without reason" or under socio-economic grounds. Picking AI's one (when they're as corrupt and insidious as Iona) is fallacious.

Again, other polls aren't comparable because they haven't asked the same questions. No other poll (that I've seen anyway) has asked people about access within 12 weeks. Which is what you're claiming people would be uncomfortable with:

AnGaelach wrote: »

Honestly, the Committee recommending abortion "without reason" up to 12 weeks has made me sure that the referendum will be defeated. I think there's a strong current of voters who are uncomfortable with such a proposal....

Dismiss the Red C/Amnesty poll all you want, but at the end of the day, none of the polls support your claim above.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-12-2017 04:32PM

end of the road wrote: »

the right to life is decided on the basis of morality and many other things.

Well yes, and water is wet. But when we get passed stating the basic obvious stuff, the questions I asked still remain.

I asked "What is it you think "rights" are at the level of philosophy. How and why are they formed. To what exactly are they assigned and on what basis? "

Saying "they are decided on the basis of morality" leaves the question unanswered. WHAT moral arguments are used, in what way, to decide this.

When the topic of abortion comes up, the failure of the anti-choice campaigner tends to be that either A) they do not know what the philosophical underpinnings of rights are or should be or

they think they know, but have not noticed that none of them give a single coherent reason as to why a fetus at 12/16 weeks should have them.

conorhal · 14-12-2017 04:42PM

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

I spent last night trying to get my head around the real argument.

So, if the 8th is not repealed then about 5,000 women will source abortions.
If the 8th is repealed then about 5,000 women will source abortions.

So really the whole debate comes down to whether the state has a duty of care to Irish women.
That best medical practice is followed by not forcing them to travel or take unsupervised medication.

That makes it a no brainer for me.

By that logic we should legalize female genital mutilation as well so that parents don't have to ship their kids back to the the third world to do it, not that we're stopping them to it here though, we now have UK residents coming over here for the practice to be performed ironically.

conorhal · 14-12-2017 04:45PM

LirW wrote: »

If abortion on demand up to 12 weeks would be legalized, you won't find out the sex of your baby that early. You could only via tests, and these aren't accurate or shouldn't be taken that early. So in that case, this issue can be avoided.

Abortion on demand requires no reasoning, as they have found in the UK, with a regime that tollerates abortion on demand it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-12-2017 04:48PM

conorhal wrote: »

Abortion on demand requires no reasoning, as they have found in the UK, with a regime that tollerates abortion on demand it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions.

I see no reason why we really should ban such things anyway. If we can find no moral or ethical reasons to say aborting a fetus at 12/16 weeks is a bad thing in the first place.... and certainly no one on any boards.ie threads have yet......... then the reasons people choose to have one should be irrelevant to us.

The reasons some people do it might make us uncomfortable at times, but so the hell what? It does not mean they should not have the right.

For example, you have the right to eat mars bars. If you told me that you were eating 50 a day with the purpose of becoming morbidly obese.... your motivation might disgust me, but I still believe in your right to eat mars bars.

Similarly I might find someone wants to abort because they think the fetus is (fe)male. Their reasoning might be abhorrent to me, but it does not affect what I think their rights should be.

conorhal · 14-12-2017 04:50PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see no reason why we really should ban such things anyway. If we can find no moral or ethical reasons to say aborting a fetus at 12/16 weeks is a bad thing in the first place.... and certainly no one on any boards.ie threads have yet......... then the reasons people choose to have one should be irrelevant to us.

The reasons some people do it might make us uncomfortable at times, but so the hell what? It does not mean they should not have the right.

For example, you have the right to eat mars bars. If you told me that you were eating 50 a day with the purpose of becoming morbidly obese.... your motivation might disgust me, but I still believe in your right to eat mars bars.

Similarly I might find someone wants to abort because they think the fetus is (fe)male. Their reasoning might be abhorrent to me, but it does not affect what I think their rights should be.

And what about the societal effect? Or don't we do 'society' any more and abortion is just another narcisistic consumer option.

LirW · 14-12-2017 04:52PM

conorhal wrote: »

Abortion on demand requires no reasoning, as they have found in the UK, with a regime that tollerates abortion on demand it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions.

No this is not true. Again at 12 weeks it is close to impossible to know the sex of an embryo. At least no Ultrasound is going to show because it looks the same at that stage in boys and girls.

The UK is a pretty unique example regarding abortion. Also the statistics speak that almost all abortions are carried out before 16 weeks gestation with an overwhelming majority before 12 weeks.

If this would be the new legislations it's nearly impossible to terminate because it's the wrong unless people have a sh1tload of money. And these people would find a way to terminate anyway.

LirW · 14-12-2017 04:54PM

conorhal wrote: »

And what about the societal effect? Or don't we do 'society' any more and abortion is just another narcisistic consumer option.

What societal effect should this have? We're not in China with some ridiculous One-Child policy.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-12-2017 04:59PM

conorhal wrote: »

And what about the societal effect? Or don't we do 'society' any more and abortion is just another narcisistic consumer option.

What effects do you envision?

NuMarvel · 14-12-2017 05:04PM

conorhal wrote: »

Abortion on demand requires no reasoning, as they have found in the UK, with a regime that tollerates abortion on demand it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions.

It's funny you use the UK to claim that it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions, when only earlier today someone linked to an article that said sex selective abortions are banned in the UK...

Crea · 14-12-2017 05:04PM

conorhal wrote: »

Abortion on demand requires no reasoning, as they have found in the UK, with a regime that tollerates abortion on demand it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions.

Up to 12 weeks it's not possible to assess the gender of a foetus by scan . In fact gender scans can only be done from 18 weeks onwards. Sex selective abortions cannot happen up to the 12 weeks recommended by the CA

LirW · 14-12-2017 05:07PM

Crea wrote: »

Up to 12 weeks it's not possible to assess the gender of a foetus by scan . In fact gender scans can only be done from 28 weeks onwards. Sex selective abortions cannot happen up to the 12 weeks recommended by the CA

Not necessarily true. You'd get offered to assess it at the big scan around 20 weeks. Anything from week 30 onwards is actually more difficult to assess, because there is less space and they might have the cord between their legs.

Crea · 14-12-2017 05:10PM

Sorry it was a mis type which i corrected. Gender scans are given from 18 weeks. My argument regarding sex selective abortion still stands

LirW · 14-12-2017 05:14PM

The problem of sex-selective abortions are very common in societies with high levels of poverty. Girls would be seen as a financial burden that a poor family can't afford. You'd want to have sons, they are strong, they can work, they can look after you when you're old.
It's not really a problem in the developed world though.

Abortion rates in the developed world went down a lot while it remains high in poor countries.

You'd most likely have a few nutjobs that would choose to do so. But I'd consider this as a very marginal problem really.

Crea · 14-12-2017 05:19PM

LirW wrote: »

The problem of sex-selective abortions are very common in societies with high levels of poverty. Girls would be seen as a financial burden that a poor family can't afford. You'd want to have sons, they are strong, they can work, they can look after you when you're old.
It's not really a problem in the developed world though.

Abortion rates in the developed world went down a lot while it remains high in poor countries.

You'd most likely have a few nutjobs that would choose to do so. But I'd consider this as a very marginal problem really.

Given that the recommendation is for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and it's impossible to ascertain the gender at that stage it is completely a non issue.
Another false flag being raised by anti abortion groups

spookwoman · 14-12-2017 05:22PM

LirW wrote: »

The problem of sex-selective abortions are very common in societies with high levels of poverty. Girls would be seen as a financial burden that a poor family can't afford. You'd want to have sons, they are strong, they can work, they can look after you when you're old.
It's not really a problem in the developed world though.

Abortion rates in the developed world went down a lot while it remains high in poor countries.

You'd most likely have a few nutjobs that would choose to do so. But I'd consider this as a very marginal problem really.

Not very helpful calling someone a nutjob who might want an abortion because of the sex. Tbh people want the choice and it's really none of anyone's business why they choose to have one.

end of the road · 14-12-2017 05:24PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well yes, and water is wet. But when we get passed stating the basic obvious stuff, the questions I asked still remain.

I asked "What is it you think "rights" are at the level of philosophy. How and why are they formed. To what exactly are they assigned and on what basis? "

Saying "they are decided on the basis of morality" leaves the question unanswered. WHAT moral arguments are used, in what way, to decide this.

it's irrelevant why people believe in the right to life. it's whataboutery. this debate operates on the basis of whether you
a. believe in the repeal of the 8th.
b. believe in abortion on demand or not, which would likely come in if the 8th was repealed..
c. believe that the unborn should or shouldn't continue to have the right to life as much as is practical, and that protection as much as is practical should or shouldn't remain within the constitution

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

When the topic of abortion comes up, the failure of the anti-choice campaigner tends to be that either A) they do not know what the philosophical underpinnings of rights are or should be or they think they know, but have not noticed that none of them give a single coherent reason as to why a fetus at 12/16 weeks should have them.

because it's irrelevant. they believe in the right to life for the unborn, why doesn't matter. they believe that the unborn have a right to life as much as is practical, that is all that ultimately matters.
i know you want to bring ridiculous deep essay style irrelevant whataboutery arguments over nothing into what admitidly isn't a simplistic debate, but people have better things to do then argue it because it's not relevant. whether the 8th is repealed or not will not be won on the basis of why rights are given to the unborn.
being against abortion on demand isn't "anti-choice" the unborn in this country have some bit of a voice and that is absolutely right in my view. the so-called pro-choice need to realise that it's not all about you as much as you want it to be. the unborn have rights as well in ireland.

NuMarvel · 14-12-2017 05:26PM

Crea wrote: »

Given that the recommendation is for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and it's impossible to ascertain the gender at that stage it is completely a non issue.
Another false flag being raised by anti abortion groups

I don't think it was even discussed as a reason during the Citizens Assembly. Certainly not in the last weekend anyway, when they were deciding on what to vote on.

For the purposes of keeping this thread someway coherent (but not wanting to backseat mod), maybe we should limit discussion to what the Committee will recommend to the Dáil. I can't see the Dáil wanting to add more exceptions after the 12 week mark, especially ones that haven't been discussed by the Assembly or the Committee.

AnGaelach · 14-12-2017 05:27PM

spookwoman wrote: »

Not very helpful calling someone a nutjob who might want an abortion because of the sex. Tbh people want the choice and it's really none of anyone's business why they choose to have one.

This is the logical conclusion of what the pro-choice lobby are campaigning for. Aborting a life simply because you want to, no qualified reason required. Don't like the gender of your child? Just abort it and start a new one!

spookwoman · 14-12-2017 05:35PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

This is the logical conclusion of what the pro-choice lobby are campaigning for. Aborting a life simply because you want to, no qualified reason required. Don't like the gender of your child? Just abort it and start a new one!

How is someone you don't know, never met, not even a relation having an abortion going to affect your life? Don't want an abortion then don't have one.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-12-2017 05:35PM

end of the road wrote: »

it's irrelevant why people believe in the right to life. it's whataboutery.

In other words you do not want to, or maybe can not, answer the question. So you want to dismiss it. Whether the fetus should have a right to life or not is CENTRAL to the entire abortion debate, so you can not just dismiss it and dodge.

And if people can not come up with an argument as to why a fetus at 12/16 weeks should have any such right, then that is important to highlight.

end of the road wrote: »

because it's irrelevant. they believe in the right to life for the unborn, why doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. We are a social species and we decide on our laws and morality and ethics in a process of ongoing discourse and our ability to persuade each other about what is, or should be, true about the world.

If you want to merely declare at people that X has right Y, but will not or simply can not offer a SINGLE argument as to why that is the case..... then it pays to highlight that lack where it arises.

And you are not alone. I have studied this topic for over 2 decades. And of the many.... many many.... anti choice people I have met over those years not one of them has yet been able to explain why a fetus at 12/16 weeks should be considered to have a right to life.

If you merely want to assert, rather than defend, your claims that is of course your right. But let us not pretend that that is because the things you can not defend are irrelevant.

LirW · 14-12-2017 05:37PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

This is the logical conclusion of what the pro-choice lobby are campaigning for. Aborting a life simply because you want to, no qualified reason required. Don't like the gender of your child? Just abort it and start a new one!

But this is not how pregnancy works. It is not a linear thing that you either like or not. People decide to have abortions because of a variety of reasons. A woman that chooses to do so has usually different problems. You abort because you don't wanna have or can support a child.
If you want a child, no matter what, you are starting to get attached to it.

We're not living in a society where the wrong sex could mean existential problems for you and your family.
Could that mean that people from extreme minorities or parallel societies opt for a gender-based abortion? Yes, but they'd find a way to do so anyway.
Same with everyone else really that wants a specific one.
This would be a very marginal problem and is just a fearmongering because the real problem falls flat, which is that women don't have safe access to abortion when they can't afford to travel and the maternity care implications that the 8th brings.

Crea · 14-12-2017 05:37PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

This is the logical conclusion of what the pro-choice lobby are campaigning for. Aborting a life simply because you want to, no qualified reason required. Don't like the gender of your child? Just abort it and start a new one!

The logical conclusion of your argument is to force women to remain pregnant when, for whatever reason, they really don't want to be.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments