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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
AnGaelach wrote: » Anyone who uses the term "pure logic" tends to be a bit on the slow side.
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.
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....
end of the road wrote: » the right to life is decided on the basis of morality and many other things.
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.
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.
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.
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.
conorhal wrote: » And what about the societal effect? Or don't we do 'society' any more and abortion is just another narcisistic consumer option.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
end of the road wrote: » it's irrelevant why people believe in the right to life. it's whataboutery.
end of the road wrote: » because it's irrelevant. they believe in the right to life for the unborn, why doesn't matter.
