The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

eviltwin wrote: »

I think a woman who has been through the trauma of a rape deserves every bit of compassion and support she can get. I see no point in further traumatizing her by forcing her to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want. In fact I'd say anyone prepared to take control from someone who has already had someone force their will on them is cruel and lacking empathy and should put their morals aside. Rape is awful enough.

we can have compassion for both mother and baby.
not allowing someone to abort isn't taking control from someone in my view. we do sometimes have to stop things from happening when they are going to negatively effect others.
there is no question that rape is beyond aweful but the baby does not deserve to be killed. it's not it's fault what it's father is . the baby has a right to life and to live.

Congratulations EOTR, the Abortion Support Network have just received a donation in your name. Happy Christmas.

end of the road wrote: »

telling someone they cannot kill someone else is not control. it's insuring the someone else's right to life is upheld.



you are wrong. someone who disagrees with abortion on demand is nothing like a rapist, the fact a rape victim may be prevented from having an abortion in the state doesn't change that either. your opinion is more of the extremist narrative that has no place in this debate.



again these are more lies which have no basis in reality. i agree we may as well leave it there. because you can't debate on this issue without resorting to getting personal with me.

EOTR, you've said twice now that I must secretly think abortion is wrong and deep down that I agree that it should be illegal.
Twice I've corrected you and said that isn't the case. And twice you've called me a liar accusing me of getting personal. When all I've done is pointed out that you are making incorrect statements about me.
You're the one who keeps telling me what I think. Me correcting you on that is not telling lies or getting personal.

end of the road wrote: »

we can have compassion for both mother and baby.
not allowing someone to abort isn't taking control from someone in my view. we do sometimes have to stop things from happening when they are going to negatively effect others.
there is no question that rape is beyond aweful but the baby does not deserve to be killed. it's not it's fault what it's father is . the baby has a right to life and to live.

Who the fuck is we.

You have no say in peoples personal troubles or choices.

Its your judgemental, self righteous type attitude that will make people sitting on the fence go the other way, by the way.

Finally any chance you can stop jumping all over peoples posts whilst disregarding valid questions and points that have been raised. Its as grating as your holier than thou, think of the children mantra, accusing anyone who disagrees with you as being a murderer.

This thread is a car crash.

STB. wrote: »

Do you not understand that OTHER peoples choices are just that. Not your choice. See I said it again. Choice.

By the way. You should know that you are very much in the minority in your views. Your attitudes towards women and their choices and the circumstances that are forced upon them that they must leave the state to carry out what must be very difficult decisions etc belong in the dark ages.

I can see the rights of the unborn child is very close to your heart. How ****ing noble. That does not give you the right to judge other people or ignore circumstances that would place people in unforseen or unfortunate circumstances in which they must make difficult personal choices.

when i am being asked to vote on something that allows for something which will effect the rights of someone else's right to life, then i'm afraid it goes beyond someone's personal choice. if you don't want me to comment on your "personal choice" then lets not have a referendum. it's as simple as that.

STB. wrote: »

I have a big shock for you so. You are.
By God do not have me quote them back to you.

Some of your posts here are disgraceful. The other ones are just plain disrespect.

again all this is inaccurate. i have been nothing but respectful and understanding, including to go as far as ignoring all the attacks thrown at me, understanding that the topic is very immotive and tensions would run high, and that there would be mud slinging especially toards pro-life posters. i believe that given the nature of the topic, that is just and fair, understanding that pro-life views are not what some people want to hear.

STB. wrote: »

All your inane, off the wall ramblings have succeeded in doing is winding up people.

my posts aren't any of that. as i said i do understand this is an immotive topic and tensions will run high on the pro-choice side, who will feel that the pro-life posters are out to wind them up. the pro-life posters and a number of the pro-choice posters on this site are not out to wind anyone up, after all, we all have to get along after this debate is over, and it would be in nobody's interests for bad relations to become part of the site.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I always find this argument as an introduction to make silly comparisons.

E.g.
We have most cars capable of driving well in excess of the speed limits.
A cursory glance at the number of penalty points issued annually suggests a good indication that practically nobody sticks to the limits.
Modern cars are very safe to allow someone to maximize their speed on an empty M1.

So why not just repeal the speed limits? After all, people have to travel far (to Germany's autobahns), to drive the fastest.

Of course the comparison isn't truly equal, even if you can make cursory comparisons. A car, after all evolve into a human being.

How are they in anyway comparable? One is an economic issue that force poor couples to become further indebted by having a child. The other is something to do with people having poor self control in cars.

Like, if people can't see that abortion, as it stands in Ireland, is a class issue and one of the reasons the gap between poor and rich has not being closed for decades, I don't know what their knowledge of social economics is.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Like, if people can't see that abortion, as it stands in Ireland, is a class issue and one of the reasons the gap between poor and rich has not being closed for decades, I don't know what their knowledge of social economics is.

Encouraging women living in poverty to have abortions instead of bringing more 'undesirables' into society to be a 'burden' on the State, is about as piss poor an argument for abortion as it gets really, and demonstrates a very poor understanding on your part of socioeconomics.

Addressing the underlying causes which force women to live in poverty would be a far more realistic endeavour than your let them eat cake" nonsense, as though women in those circumstances would want to avail of abortion in the first place, and second of all you're right when you suggest that it is a class issue - it's much more convenient to encourage people who feel they don't have any choice to have an abortion so you don't have to be dealing with the underclass :rolleyes:

The more I hear from some people in the repeal camp, the more I'm convinced they're oblivious to reality.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Encouraging women living in poverty to have abortions instead of bringing more 'undesirables' into society to be a 'burden' on the State, is about as piss poor an argument for abortion as it gets really, and demonstrates a very poor understanding on your part of socioeconomics.

Addressing the underlying causes which force women to live in poverty would be a far more realistic endeavour than your let them eat cake" nonsense, as though women in those circumstances would want to avail of abortion in the first place, and second of all you're right when you suggest that it is a class issue - it's much more convenient to encourage people who feel they don't have any choice to have an abortion so you don't have to be dealing with the underclass :rolleyes:

The more I hear from some people in the repeal camp, the more I'm convinced they're oblivious to reality.

Seriously? the save the 8th crowd utterly refuse to acknowledge that the reality of the situation is that all our laws do is discriminate against women who cannot afford to travel to England for an abortion.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Ok, point out to me EXACTLY where I stated that I want poor couples to have abortions? Like, seriously, tell me? If a poor couple want to have a baby, there is absolutely nothing I can do to stop them. Nor would I want to stop them from doing so. If they think they can cope with it, more power to them.

You made the point that one of the reasons for the class divide in Ireland is because of abortion. How else was anyone supposed to interpret that as anything other than encouraging poor women to have abortions so they wouldn't be having children you determine for them that they can't afford?

But, and there is a HUGE but, when they know they are not financially capable of raising a child (due to in poorer sexual education and the fact contraception costs a sh1t ton, both male and female), they cannot get an abortion due to the cost of it. If they want an abortion, under current laws, they cannot access one in the country and cannot afford the cost of getting one in the UK. That's what leads to class divide and an ongoing cycle of poverty.

Your argument still rests on the assumption that they don't want to have a child, and would choose to have an abortion instead, when the reality is that one of the reasons abortion hasn't had much support in this country is because 1. There's simply no appetite for it, and 2. We have numerous support structures in this country which provide people with the means to provide for their children.

Legislating for abortion will have zero effect on women and children living in poverty, in just the same way as it has had zero effect on the class divide where abortion is legislated for in the countries where women travel to avail of it there, countries which have even poorer support systems than Ireland!

Also, you clearly have absolutely no clue about socioeconomics if you believe that "undesirables" have a "burden" on the State. What absolutely vile language to use. Shows the level of contempt you have for women in poorer backgrounds who want abortions.

That's exactly the language that was used in determining what should be done about the issue of unmarried pregnant women when the idea of institionalising them and their unwanted children was floated, and you're right, it is a terrible attitude, and Irish society hasn't moved on all that much as there still exists a stigma against unmarried mothers in this country, exacerbated by the class divide where poorer unmarried mothers are subjected to harsher judgement and criticism than more affluent unmarried mothers.

You want to talk about a class divide, well there it is, and it doesn't say anything about my attitude towards any woman who would want an abortion, regardless of her circumstances, because I'm not the one who made the assumption that poor women would want abortions in the first place.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I'd read that paragraph you quoted again there bud. Also, your logic is horrible. "Hmm, this poster is saying that it is a class issue for poor couples to not be able to travel for abortions, therefore he wants all poor women to get abortions! How dastardly!" That's not how logic works. You can extrapolate 3 things from it. Either a. what you jumped to b. that I don't care either way or c. that everyone should have the option and not just the middle/upper classes. In previous posts I have talked about how it is c, but logically, there are 3 equally valid options. So of course you jump to the one that makes your side look best, figures. :rolleyes:

I didn't jump to any conclusion which "makes my side look best" as you put it, as I pointed out to another poster way, way back in this thread - I have no interest in... taking sides. Jesus it's even horrible to type that out because, well for me personally I feel it simply diminishes the gravity of what we're talking about here which is peoples lives, and that's why I bailed out of this thread earlier when it was clear that ideology was going to trump reality.

I'll clear up my interpretation of what you suggested then, because I try to engage in good faith and no, I don't think you personally were suggesting that we should encourage poor women to have abortions, but that would be the effect of your suggestion - that rather than support women so they wouldn't feel they had no choice but to have an abortion, they choose abortion because they lack support, and that's what I meant when I said that it would be better to address the underlying issues which cause women to find themselves in those circumstances. One thing I can tell you is that it's not because contraception isn't affordable. More often it's simply because contraception isn't used, or isn't used properly.

Well, empirical and anecdotal evidence both points to the fact that yes, yes there are poor couples who would like to have an abortion but due to our laws they can't. Some women are so desperate they take out fcuking loans, putting themselves in debt so they don't have to have a child they don't want and can't afford/want to look after! But, that messes with your narrative, so let's not acknowledge it, right?

Of course there are women who due to their socioeconomic circumstances feel that it would be better for them to have an abortion, I'm just not going to assume that they would want one if they were able to afford not to have one. That's why for many women abortion simply isn't as easy a choice as has been made out in this thread. To acknowledge that of course wouldn't suit the prevailing narrative in this thread, as that would mean having to acknowledge that simply legislating for abortion isn't going to allieviate poverty in Irish society.

The assertion is often made that pro-life people don't care about a child once they're born, and I'd love to know where that comes from, because the evidence appears to suggest otherwise given that one of the largest pro-life organisations in this country is also the largest provider of education to children! I guess that doesn't suit the narrative either.

There is clearly an appetite to repeal the 8th, in some form. Almost around 80% of people are in favour of repealing it. It's just about where that line should be drawn. So there clearly IS an appetite for it. But, as always, ignore the facts in front of your face, put your hands over you ears and pretend it isn't happening.

I'm not talking about an appetite to repeal the 8th, I'm talking about abortion, and there really is no appetite for it in any society really, and that's why the stigma against abortion exists, in pretty much every society you'd care to mention. People don't generally just see abortion as being the equivalent of a benign medical procedure as is being made out in this thread. I know well it happens, but that doesn't mean people actually want to acknowledge that it happens, and that's why even if the 8th amendment were to be repealed, how many people do you think would even want an abortion clinic in their neighbourhood? I certainly wouldn't tbh.

Finally, empirical evidence from America and the UK actually does suggest that having abortions available does help close poverty gaps. The more liberal a society or population is when abortion is available, the more the rich/poor divide closes (or, at least, doesn't open as fast). So, yeah, there is evidence. Not that you will listen, of course.

I'm always prepared to listen, and I'm actually eager to listen if you actually have evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim! I also wouldn't suggest Irish society is as liberal as you're given to assuming, but I'd love to see your evidence for your claims pertaining to the US and the UK at least.

What are you even babbling on about? We all know that poorer people generally get harsher sentences than richer ones. That's common fact, and due to the level of attorney you can afford to hire. And again, I have not assumed that ALL poor women will want to have abortions, or that the State thinks all poor women should have abortions. Again, you jumped to that conclusion.

When I used the word 'judgement' there, I didn't mean in the judicial sense, I meant in the sense that people have more of a tendency to pass judgement on unmarried mothers in socioeconomically deprived circumstances. I didn't jump to the conclusion that you personally think all poor women would have abortions at all.

My point, and my only point, is that using poor women's circumstances to make your argument for abortion is a terrible argument, because it can be easily pointed out that abortion won't do anything for them, and that's even if they wanted an abortion in the first place if they had a REAL choice in whether or not to have one. That's why I made the point that unmarried women in more affluent circumstances have more choices than women in poorer circumstances - it's not because they are able to afford to travel for an abortion, it's because they are generally better off all-round in terms of education, social support and social status!

But, the class issue here is that middle/upper class women can afford to travel for abortions while lower class women can not (or put themselves into debt to do so). When one group can access a service another can't, particularly a health care one, that is unequal treatment and is a class divide, therefore is a class divide issue.

No, that's not unequal treatment, it's exactly the same treatment that is provided by a service provider, to those who can afford it. That would still be an issue regardless of whether or not the 8th amendment is repealed - more affluent people will always have access to better healthcare than people who are poorer, and legislating for abortion won't change that fact.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

On a side note, does anyone know if the 8th is repealed and legislation along the lines proposed by the committee is introduced, does that necessarily mean there will be 'abortion clinics' as such operating in Ireland. They were talking about a GP-led service providing the abortion pill. Also, the Belfast abortion clinic recently closed down, so presumably the same services can be provided without the necessity for a dedicated clinic.

Maternity hospitals and/or GP clinics, Well Woman centres etc would suffice.

Private abortion clinics such as those in the UK offer a full range of women's health services, not just abortion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't jump to any conclusion which "makes my side look best" as you put it, as I pointed out to another poster way, way back in this thread - I have no interest in... taking sides. Jesus it's even horrible to type that out because, well for me personally I feel it simply diminishes the gravity of what we're talking about here which is peoples lives, and that's why I bailed out of this thread earlier when it was clear that ideology was going to trump reality.

I'll clear up my interpretation of what you suggested then, because I try to engage in good faith and no, I don't think you personally were suggesting that we should encourage poor women to have abortions, but that would be the effect of your suggestion - that rather than support women so they wouldn't feel they had no choice but to have an abortion, they choose abortion because they lack support, and that's what I meant when I said that it would be better to address the underlying issues which cause women to find themselves in those circumstances. One thing I can tell you is that it's not because contraception isn't affordable. More often it's simply because contraception isn't used, or isn't used properly.

I want to leave this point in context because, unlike some others on this forum, I don't take sentences out of context. I want people to see the full context of what you've said. Now, onto the points I want to tackle in this.

I'll clear up my interpretation of what you suggested then, because I try to engage in good faith and no, I don't think you personally were suggesting that we should encourage poor women to have abortions, but that would be the effect of your suggestion

I actually have no clue how you are drawing that conclusion. I really don't. You claim to be trying to engage in "good faith" (and you're only doing that now because you can't point to anywhere that I claimed all lower class women should have abortions) and yet you make statements like these, which paints having abortions up to 12 weeks like the flood gates will open and lower class people will be getting them a few times a year. That's just not the case.

One thing I can tell you is that it's not because contraception isn't affordable. More often it's simply because contraception isn't used, or isn't used properly

Okay, citation please! Also, as someone who has been on 2 different students' unions, I can tell you that we provide condoms free of charge to a. ensure that students have condoms to prevent STIs and pregnancy (because they are EXPENSIVE!) and b. so we could give information on how to properly use it. Expense is a thing, sorry to tell you, as is lack of education. Which, ironically, stems from the sex-shaming that brought something like the 8th into existence.

Of course there are women who due to their socioeconomic circumstances feel that it would be better for them to have an abortion, I'm just not going to assume that they would want one if they were able to afford not to have one. That's why for many women abortion simply isn't as easy a choice as has been made out in this thread. To acknowledge that of course wouldn't suit the prevailing narrative in this thread, as that would mean having to acknowledge that simply legislating for abortion isn't going to allieviate poverty in Irish society.

I don't think a single pro-choice person here has claimed that an abortion is an easy decision. Hell, I've made the point it isn't. And 70% of women who have an abortion never have a second. And yes, one of the factors some women take into consideration before getting an abortion is can they afford to have a child. To act like it isn't is foolish at best, bad faith at worst.

The assertion is often made that pro-life people don't care about a child once they're born, and I'd love to know where that comes from, because the evidence appears to suggest otherwise given that one of the largest pro-life organisations in this country is also the largest provider of education to children! I guess that doesn't suit the narrative either.

What evidence? Provide said evidence please! Also, since they are the ones who want women to not be allowed abortions, the burden is on them to prove they are going to ensure the child has a great life after it's born (pro-tip, they usually don't).

I'm not talking about an appetite to repeal the 8th, I'm talking about abortion, and there really is no appetite for it in any society really, and that's why the stigma against abortion exists, in pretty much every society you'd care to mention. People don't generally just see abortion as being the equivalent of a benign medical procedure as is being made out in this thread. I know well it happens, but that doesn't mean people actually want to acknowledge that it happens, and that's why even if the 8th amendment were to be repealed, how many people do you think would even want an abortion clinic in their neighbourhood? I certainly wouldn't tbh.

Firstly, look at the thread title please. While I may be also in favour of abortion on demand up until 16 weeks (12 is good to try and get the Yes though, I see why they went with it), this is a conversation about repealing the 8th. And allowing people abortion for stuff that should already be there, like threats to the mother life and mental health, rape and fetal fatal abnormalities.

And the idea of have an abortion clinic in their neighborhood is bizarre. I can imagine that it will be carried out in hospitals or specific clinics. It's a moot point really. People won't have that much control over it.

I'm always prepared to listen, and I'm actually eager to listen if you actually have evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim! I also wouldn't suggest Irish society is as liberal as you're given to assuming, but I'd love to see your evidence for your claims pertaining to the US and the UK at least.

Tell you what, I'll give you citations when you give me some. Also, Ireland is a liberal country in the proper sense. People generally believe that people should have the right to control their own lives. The lack of systemic racism and sexism (there is still some, but nowhere near as bad as the US) shows that.

When I used the word 'judgement' there, I didn't mean in the judicial sense, I meant in the sense that people have more of a tendency to pass judgement on unmarried mothers in socioeconomically deprived circumstances. I didn't jump to the conclusion that you personally think all poor women would have abortions at all.

My point, and my only point, is that using poor women's circumstances to make your argument for abortion is a terrible argument, because it can be easily pointed out that abortion won't do anything for them, and that's even if they wanted an abortion in the first place if they had a REAL choice in whether or not to have one. That's why I made the point that unmarried women in more affluent circumstances have more choices than women in poorer circumstances - it's not because they are able to afford to travel for an abortion, it's because they are generally better off all-round in terms of education, social support and social status!

You make a claim that it's a terrible point, and then don't back that claim up with any discussion or evidence. Here is the thing, lower class women currently have NO choice. Even if most lower class women would never have an abortion, having a choice is better than having no choice at all. Secondly, you haven't refuted my point in the slightest. I've clearly shown how not having abortions continues a cycle of poverty. You've yet to prove otherwise. And getting into debt? Is that something you agree with? You have yet to say anything about that.

No, that's not unequal treatment, it's exactly the same treatment that is provided by a service provider, to those who can afford it. That would still be an issue regardless of whether or not the 8th amendment is repealed - more affluent people will always have access to better healthcare than people who are poorer, and legislating for abortion won't change that fact.

Right, so, clear something up for me. You say I have a poor understanding of socioeconomics, yet I can grasp the fact that by not being able to access a service due to lack of funds is generally bad, you just say "Well, rich people will always have access to better stuff!" I think we all know that, but that doesn't change the fact that lower class women have no access to this form of healthcare. Absolutely none. You aren't refuting my case, if anything you are proving it.