The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Jack the pro choice position has been successfully defended by numerous posters on this and many other threads.

That's a matter of opinion, and clearly we're not likely to find agreement on how either of us defines success.

The 8th Amendment has a vast number of negative outcomes for women in this country, up to and including problems with maternity care.

We're in agreement there. Where we appear to disagree is the effect that removing it will have, you see it as something positive, and again, I disagree. We're unlikely to find agreement there either.

You yourself have dismissed evidence from the Citizens Assembly that I provided and thus showed that you are completely unable to accept hard fact. I genuinely do not know what to say to someone who refuses to believe when the evidence is put in front of them - it really is flat earther time.

There are no such things as hard facts when it comes to matters of opinion in areas such as politics, so on that basis I wouldn't so much have dismissed anything that came out of the Citizens Assembly, so much as refused to acknowledge it for the farcical comedy show it was in the first place.

You don't have to say anything btw, just acknowledge that other people who aren't you, will clearly have a different perspective to yours. That's generally how rational adults manage to get along just fine.

Whereas there has been (a) no evidence provided to show that the 8th Amendment should be kept in place due to positive outcomes and (b) no argument yet provided to show that a fetus should have more rights than a living sentient woman.

If such evidence or argument exists, please do elucidate.

No, I won't elucidate any such thing, because that would be tacit acknowledgement that I have to frame my arguments in such a way as to acknowledge that I have to kowtow to your authority. That would be like me asking you to frame your arguments according to existing laws in this country. I don't expect you to btw, but you don't get to tell me how I should make my arguments either.

The 8th has never suggested that the unborn has more rights than the woman btw, but you knew that already, it's just the facts and evidence don't suit your argument.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

....... wrote: »

Jack the pro choice position has been successfully defended by numerous posters on this and many other threads.

That's a matter of opinion, and clearly we're not likely to find agreement on how either of us defines success.

The 8th Amendment has a vast number of negative outcomes for women in this country, up to and including problems with maternity care.

We're in agreement there. Where we appear to disagree is the effect that removing it will have, you see it as something positive, and again, I disagree. We're unlikely to find agreement there either.

You yourself have dismissed evidence from the Citizens Assembly that I provided and thus showed that you are completely unable to accept hard fact. I genuinely do not know what to say to someone who refuses to believe when the evidence is put in front of them - it really is flat earther time.

There are no such things as hard facts when it comes to matters of opinion in areas such as politics, so on that basis I wouldn't so much have dismissed anything that came out of the Citizens Assembly, so much as refused to acknowledge it for the farcical comedy show it was in the first place.

You don't have to say anything btw, just acknowledge that other people who aren't you, will clearly have a different perspective to yours. That's generally how rational adults manage to get along just fine.

Whereas there has been (a) no evidence provided to show that the 8th Amendment should be kept in place due to positive outcomes and (b) no argument yet provided to show that a fetus should have more rights than a living sentient woman.

If such evidence or argument exists, please do elucidate.

No, I won't elucidate any such thing, because that would be tacit acknowledgement that I have to frame my arguments in such a way as to acknowledge that I have to kowtow to your authority. That would be like me asking you to frame your arguments according to existing laws in this country. I don't expect you to btw, but you don't get to tell me how I should make my arguments either.

The 8th has never suggested that the unborn has more rights than the woman btw, but you knew that already, it's just the facts and evidence don't suit your argument.

The problem with that approach ("I dont have to justify my opinion to anyone") is that your opinion effectively requires that pregnant women be allowed fewer human rights than non pregnant ones.

You don't have to justify it of course, but if you can't then you can expect to lose any court case where a woman objects to this loss of rights.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

....... wrote: »

Jack the pro choice position has been successfully defended by numerous posters on this and many other threads.

That's a matter of opinion, and clearly we're not likely to find agreement on how either of us defines success.

The 8th Amendment has a vast number of negative outcomes for women in this country, up to and including problems with maternity care.

We're in agreement there. Where we appear to disagree is the effect that removing it will have, you see it as something positive, and again, I disagree. We're unlikely to find agreement there either.

You yourself have dismissed evidence from the Citizens Assembly that I provided and thus showed that you are completely unable to accept hard fact. I genuinely do not know what to say to someone who refuses to believe when the evidence is put in front of them - it really is flat earther time.

There are no such things as hard facts when it comes to matters of opinion in areas such as politics, so on that basis I wouldn't so much have dismissed anything that came out of the Citizens Assembly, so much as refused to acknowledge it for the farcical comedy show it was in the first place.

You don't have to say anything btw, just acknowledge that other people who aren't you, will clearly have a different perspective to yours. That's generally how rational adults manage to get along just fine.

Whereas there has been (a) no evidence provided to show that the 8th Amendment should be kept in place due to positive outcomes and (b) no argument yet provided to show that a fetus should have more rights than a living sentient woman.

If such evidence or argument exists, please do elucidate.

No, I won't elucidate any such thing, because that would be tacit acknowledgement that I have to frame my arguments in such a way as to acknowledge that I have to kowtow to your authority. That would be like me asking you to frame your arguments according to existing laws in this country. I don't expect you to btw, but you don't get to tell me how I should make my arguments either.

The 8th has never suggested that the unborn has more rights than the woman btw, but you knew that already, it's just the facts and evidence don't suit your argument.

No idea why I'm posting double every time today!

sondagefaux

splinter65 wrote: »

Consonata wrote: »

Abortion clinics would have records of who gets an abortion. It would be the easiest thing in the world to check the database of people who obtain an abortion and match it to the defendant.

What other difficulties would there be?

You do realize that patient confidentiality applies to abortion clinics?

You do realise that patients don't have an absolute right to confidentiality? Their rights can be taken away if necessary for a criminal investigation.

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

it can be considered life as it is living. homeostasis is only one of the aspects that determine life.

Once again you show a lack of understanding and knowledge. Yes, it is one of the aspects to determine life but you need to have all of the aspects to be considered life. Stop arguing from ignorance. You don't have a clue about science and biology.

This post has been deleted.

nice_guy80

I have a vision of the Iona social media bots just splurging nonsense on this thread

This post has been deleted.

sondagefaux

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nuff said then Jack.

Yet another prolifer who has no argument to make, no facts to present.[/quote]

Let's not call them 'prolifers'.

Let's call them what they are - weirdos.

Why weirdos?

Because they claim to believe that abortion is killing babies but don't want to do everything in their power to prevent Irish women from travelling abroad to get abortions or to prosecute Irish women who have had abortions abroad.

If I genuinely believed that abortion was killing babies, you can be certain that I would do everything possible to prevent Irish women from getting abortions outside of Ireland.

This:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

T
There are no such things as hard facts when it comes to matters of opinion in areas such as politics, so on that basis I wouldn't so much have dismissed anything that came out of the Citizens Assembly, so much as refused to acknowledge it for the farcical comedy show it was in the first place.

Citizens Assembly... what's the point?
99 non-elected people making recommendations for 4,700,000 people.

Of which nearly a third of the people initially drafted have withdrawn from it's proceedings. They meet in Malahide as far as I am aware, which means people drafted from Kerry, Donegal, Mayo need to travel a long distance to attend the meetings. Personally I wouldn't have time for that. I'd imagine most working people wouldn't.

The only reason they exist is so that the Oireachtas doesn't have to make a hard decision, only: "follow a recommendation" <= Bang of Bertie era Fianna Fáil off that

Regardless, if there is a referendum it will be defeated and the 8th Amendment will remain in place. This is Ireland after all, the Parish pumps will start to work up and down the country urging people to vote against repealing the amendment and it will be defeated unless there is a huge turn out in the major cities where the parish pumps don't really exist.

This wont be like the marriage equality referendum in 2015, it made sense to allow same sex couples to get married as it didn't hurt or affect anyone physically or mentally in anyway. Most families these days have openly gay family member/relatives so could relate to the inequality suffered by same sex couples.
But this referendum is effectively about the life of an unborn child, people won't relate to that the same way.

I know plenty of women who have had abortions and it's all been hush hush. Most of the cases were not due to an abnormality but because they just didn't want to have a child at that point in their lives.

I don't think I'm Pro-Choice or Pro-Life... I'm "Pro-Cop the f*ck on"

Abortion should never be used as a form of birth control.
Morning after pill should be available with no questions asked from every Pharmacy up and down the country and should be free. *
All forms of Contraception should be free. **
In the event the unborn child has significant genetic problem or physical abnormality that would limit the child's life or require full time care for the rest of the child's life, then yes Abortion should be an option.

It's about having the Cop on to manage your own life and being responsible not relying on some social net or religious belief to influence decisions that you've made that will directly affect you.

*, ** - This should also help the Social housing/single mothers issue we have in this country a great deal. If these are in place and the Government said "Starting in 9 months time, there will be no Social housing for new applicant single mothers". You'd find the "housing crisis" would disappear overnight.
Again... It's about being responsible and not relying on some social net.

SusieBlue

grahambo wrote: »

This:

I don't think I'm Pro-Choice or Pro-Life... I'm "Pro-Cop the f*ck on"

Abortion should never be used as a form of birth control.
Morning after pill should be available with no questions asked from every Pharmacy up and down the country and should be free. *
All forms of Contraception should be free. **
In the event the unborn child has significant genetic problem or physical abnormality that would limit the child's life or require full time care for the rest of the child's life, then yes Abortion should be an option.

It's about having the Cop on to manage your own life and being responsible not relying on some social net or religious belief to influence decisions that you've made that will directly affect you.

*, ** - This should also help the Social housing/single mothers issue we have in this country a great deal. If these are in place and the Government said "Starting in 9 months time, there will be no Social housing for new applicant single mothers". You'd find the "housing crisis" would disappear overnight.
Again... It's about being responsible and not relying on some social net.

You are aware of course, that contraception isn't 100% reliable and can, and has, failed for many people?

I genuinely don't know of any person that would choose to avail of such an invasive, emotionally and physically draining procedure such as an abortion, as a form of birth control, or in lieu of birth control. What kind of people do you keep company with if you honestly believe that this is how abortion would be treated?

You are making it sound as if going for one is as casual as getting a cup of coffee.

You talk about taking responsibility and "copping on". Abortion is just that, for some people.
You seem to believe in the old Irish tradition of suffering in misery when there is no need.
Not bringing a child you can't care for, can't cope with, can't bring up, into this world is taking responsibility, whether you like it or not. Abortion is not being irresponsible. Its far more responsible than adding another mouth to feed to the social welfare system, some might even say.

sondagefaux

I don't think I'm Pro-Choice or Pro-Life... I'm "Pro-Cop the f*ck on

A 'common sense' rant - the best kind of rant!

I presume that you don't think children should be raped and that child rape should be a crime.

Did you know that it is possible under Irish law to prevent someone who wants to travel abroad to rape children from leaving the state?

Did you know that it is possible under Irish law to prosecute people who return to Ireland after having raped children abroad?

Given that killing babies, i.e. child murder, is more serious than child rape, do you support changes to the law which would prevent Irish women from travelling abroad to get abortions and enable them to be prosecuted if they return to Ireland after getting an abortion abroad?

If not, why not?

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You are aware of course, that contraception isn't 100% reliable and can, and has, failed for many people?

That's a fair point:
A) I know women who were on the pill, got sick and got pregnant a few weeks later.

I know people that were told they would never had kids that got pregnant.
C) I know people that got pregnant after the condom ripped.

I get what you're saying, there are cases where it can fail. They are more common than people think.

However that being said, in the case of A and B the morning after pill should be available to people for free.
I accept that the morning after pill probably isn't the healthiest thing to be using regularly. In that case people should refrain from having intercourse until the woman's cycle starts again.

Note also that the Male contraceptive pill/jab isn't far away either, it shouldn't be all up to the woman to take contraceptive drugs.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I genuinely don't know of any person that would choose to avail of such an invasive, emotionally and physically draining procedure such as an abortion, as a form of birth control, or in lieu of birth control. What kind of people do you keep company with if you honestly believe that this is how abortion would be treated?

They are normal people.
One woman had 4 kids already and didn't want another and was going through a rough time in her marriage.
One woman was 21 and felt she was to young to have kids (This is person is quite a selfish person).
Another had a one nighter with some guy she didn't know .
And one was in an destuctive relationship and although she loved the guy at the time felt she couldn't have a child with him as he has addiction issues

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You are making it sound as if going for one is as casual as getting a cup of coffee.

I'm sorry if that's how I came across, I don't mean to be insensitive. But I'm only explaining based on what I've seen first hand.
I'm a man. I'll never know what it'd be like. So I'll never presume to fully understand what a woman goes through when having an abortion.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You talk about taking responsibility and "copping on". Abortion is just that.
You seem to believe in the old Irish tradition of suffering in misery when there is no need.
Not bringing a child you can't care for, can't cope with, can't bring up, into this world is taking responsibility, whether you like it or not. Abortion is not being irresponsible. Its far more responsible than adding another mouth to feed to the social welfare system, some might even say.

There is that aspect of it too I suppose, as I said I'm not pro-life nor pro-choice.

But it comes down to the fact that if you don't want to have a child then use contraceptives.
Condoms are 98% effective
Pill is 99.9% effective
Jab is over 99% effective
Condom + Pill/Jab with use of morning after pill if one were to fail should be 99.99999% effective.

I don't want to have any more kids so I've got my balls done. I'm young enough 34, but I know what not having it done puts me at risk of.
The decision directly affects me.
Note: I'm not saying that women that don't want kids should get their tubes tied.

LirW

Women who don't want kids face MAJOR obstacles getting her tubes tied. Doctors wouldn't tie you when you're under 40 or have at least 3 -4 children. I asked for a tubal ligation before the C-section of my second child and the doctor said that's not going to happen since I'm not even 30. It's even worse for women not having children at all, it's basically impossible to get a permanent solution and safe solution.

I also want to say that if contraception is 99% effective the chance that every time you have sex is 1:100 that you'll get pregnant. That's not the highest amount really. It's safe and if you're being north korean army about it that's good, you're doing everything to minimize your chances getting pregnant.

seamus

You seem to be a bit all over the place there grahambo, with all due respect.

You acknowledge that contraception isn't 100% effective, and that there are many circumstances in which someone may become pregnant despite being on contraception, and yet you still appear to be saying that abortion should not be available to them because "if you don't want to have a child then use contraceptives"

The morning-after pill is also not 100% effective and women are only going to take it where they have engaged in risky intercourse. In the first two scenarios you posit, those women would have no reason to think to go get a morning-after pill, and in the last scenario one would need to be aware the condom has split. Micro-tears are possible and semen escapes but neither party notices.

Contraception is not foolproof, people are fallible. "Waiting until the next cycle" sounds easy in a perfect scenario, but very few scenarios are perfect.

If it so happens that a woman has found herself pregnant, regardless of whether she was using contraception, should she not have the right to choose to proceed? If you say no, then basically what you're saying is, "Don't have sex unless you're prepared to have a baby".

Consonata

grahambo wrote: »

However that being said, in the case of A and B the morning after pill should be available to people for free.
I accept that the morning after pill probably isn't the healthiest thing to be using regularly. In that case people should refrain from having intercourse until the woman's cycle starts again.

MAP only works 70% of the time the actual morning after, then that probability rapidly decreases after that.

There are also many cases where you don't know the contraceptive hasn't worked and the MAP is rendered null regardless.

Loafing Oaf

grahambo wrote: »

Note also that the Male contraceptive pill/jab isn't far away either,

It's been five years away for the last 50 years!:P

sondagefaux wrote: »

A 'common sense' rant - the best kind of rant!

I presume that you don't think children should be raped and that child rape should be a crime.

Yes, Child Rape should be a crime

sondagefaux wrote: »

Did you know that it is possible under Irish law to prevent someone who wants to travel abroad to rape children from leaving the state?

Yes, However it's nearly impossible to prove someone has an intention of travelling to places where sex with children is widely available/legal/turned a blind eye too

sondagefaux wrote: »

Did you know that it is possible under Irish law to prosecute people who return to Ireland after having raped children abroad?

Yes, But I do not know how many have been successfully prosecuted

sondagefaux wrote: »

Given that killing babies, i.e. child murder, is more serious than child rape, do you support changes to the law which would prevent Irish women from travelling abroad to get abortions and enable them to be prosecuted if they return to Ireland after getting an abortion abroad?

If not, why not?

How do you prove a woman had an abortion or was even pregnant in the first place?

Regardless a change in that law would be irrelevant, the case would just be taken to the EU where it would be dismissed as she as an EU citizen.

Under you're argument anyone that enters the country regardless of whether they are Irish or not could be prosecuted for a crime under Irish law that was committed in another country.

If a French Woman decided to have an abortion in the UK and then traveled to Ireland she could be Prosecuted under Irish Law?
I can't see that ever happening.

I don't think Abortion is "killing babies", however I also don't think it's "not killing babies". It's somewhere in between, that's the difficulty I suppose.

This post has been deleted.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Point taken, I honestly don't know what the solution is in your case.
Don't they have Latex free Condoms these days?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agreed, however I think abstinence and a week or two of restraint/non-vaginal sex are different things

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's not my place to Judge anyone. I'm just explaining the reasons.

Consonata wrote: »

MAP only works 70% of the time the actual morning after, then that probability rapidly decreases after that.

There are also many cases where you don't know the contraceptive hasn't worked and the MAP is rendered null regardless.

I get what you are saying but if a woman is on the pill the the effectiveness is 99.9%
If they use a condom as well as the pill that 0.1% chance now is reduced to 0.002% chance.
If the condom were to break and MAP were to be used which is 70% effective you're down to 0.0006% chance of getting pregnant.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

It's been five years away for the last 50 years!:P

They're testing now, apparently there is bad side effects.

seamus wrote: »

If it so happens that a woman has found herself pregnant, regardless of whether she was using contraception, should she not have the right to choose to proceed? If you say no, then basically what you're saying is, "Don't have sex unless you're prepared to have a baby".

This is reproduction 101 Seamus, it's the primary reason we've evolved to enjoy/have the urge to have sex: To Reproduce.
If you have sex, you accept that it is possible regardless of what contraceptive you use that there is a tiny remote possibility that you could get pregnant.

LirW wrote: »

Women who don't want kids face MAJOR obstacles getting her tubes tied. Doctors wouldn't tie you when you're under 40 or have at least 3 -4 children. I asked for a tubal ligation before the C-section of my second child and the doctor said that's not going to happen since I'm not even 30. It's even worse for women not having children at all, it's basically impossible to get a permanent solution and safe solution.

This is the part where Irish society needs to the Cop the F*ck on. D*ckhead know it all Doctors. If you are in good mental a physical health and requested the above and he refused to perform it, you should be able to sew. It's not up to the Doctor, simple as.

LirW wrote: »

I also want to say that if contraception is 99% effective the chance that every time you have sex is 1:100 that you'll get pregnant. That's not the highest amount really. It's safe and if you're being north korean army about it that's good, you're doing everything to minimize your chances getting pregnant.

They have to say 98% for condoms, they know there is a percentage of them that break, however it is significantly smaller than 2%. Manufacturers need to cover their arses ya know?

ohnonotgmail

i see we are back to "the dirty harlots getting what is coming to them" line of discussion.

You know the side effects aren't worse than early female contraceptive pills right?

It's just that male sexual health matters more than female apparently.

Thats why abortion isn't allowed even to preserve a woman's health, while the male contraceptive pill has to have fewer side effects to be made available even when a woman's health requires that partner use reliable contraception.

This post has been deleted.

LirW

grahambo wrote: »

They have to say 98% for condoms, they know there is a percentage of them that break, however it is significantly smaller than 2%. Manufacturers need to cover their arses ya know?

Safety is assessed in the Pearl-Index or the life table method and not the Condom companies.
Both assess how many couples get pregnant in the course of 12 months using one kind of birth control.
That's the reason why there is a variety of percentage over the years but it gives a good indicative.

If the pill is 99,9% effective that means 1 in 1000 couples get pregnant over the course of a year. Just spread that out over the population and you can get an idea how easily something can go wrong.

mrkiscool2

volchitsa wrote: »

You know the side effects aren't worse than early female contraceptive pills right?

It's just that male sexual health matters more than female apparently.

Thats why abortion isn't allowed even to preserve a woman's health, while the male contraceptive pill has to have fewer side effects to be made available even when a woman's health requires that partner use reliable contraception.

Erm, what? Do you even know what happened the first time they trialed the male contraceptive pill? A person killed themselves and others had to be sectioned due to having severe mental health issues. It hasn't been discontinued, however, it has just gone back to be modified to ensure that a. the success rate went up (was only 96% effective) and b. that the severe mental health effects go away.

Also, while women do experience some hormonal changes and other issues, there are a wide range of female contraceptives that all effect different women differently. If one thing doesn't work, another will. So far, we just have the injection or condoms for men.

LirW

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Erm, what? Do you even know what happened the first time they trialed the male contraceptive pill? A person killed themselves and others had to be sectioned due to having severe mental health issues. It hasn't been discontinued, however, it has just gone back to be modified to ensure that a. the success rate went up (was only 96% effective) and b. that the severe mental health effects go away.

Also, while women do experience some hormonal changes and other issues, there are a wide range of female contraceptives that all effect different women differently. If one thing doesn't work, another will. So far, we just have the injection or condoms for men.

For me it's either condoms or progesterone only pill (which I take for a medical issue). Estrogen doesn't work for me because of said issue. When I got the prescription for it my GP told me "well you had a depressive episode before, that stuff can make you pretty depressive". Yay. Fortunately it works quite well for me but it's not particularly uplifting to get that told by your GP.
Oh and copper I can't take either because my menstrual flow is too strong for it.

Also as far as I'm aware, the person that committed suicide on the trial had a long history of severe mental health issues before.
Hormonal birth control can enhance mental health issues in women too, especially if you have a history of depression, which is not too uncommon. But plenty of women get told from their GPs it either gets better or you have to change to something else where again you don't know how it'll work for you. That is usually a year long process for women where they experience discomfort, weight gain, changes in their skin and effects on their mental well-being.
It's not a case of "ah shur something will work for everyone". Birth control and their side effects are a huge topic among women because every single woman has to deal with the birth control question somehow.

EDIT: And to top that all off, the specific pill I'm taking is in short supply for a few months now, that means I can't get it in the pharmacies close to me. I'm lucky that my pharmacy would give me a knock-off but a lot of pharmacies wouldn't do that. So once they run out, you hope to get it somewhere else and if not, especially in rural areas, you have to get off your birth control temporarily which isn't particularly good for you.