The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

mrkiscool2 · 04-01-2018 01:16PM

Edward M wrote: »

Fair enough too, I can be compartmentalised as judgemental in that sense.
What I mean in reference to that is that I don't judge those who would openly admit to having an abortion. If they feel they did the right thing then don't mind anyone who accuses or judges them of other.
Just an instance I know of, a young girl 17, fairly close acquaintaince of mine some years ago, got pregnant, her boyfriend was about the same age at the time, her family didn't want her to have the baby, boyfriends family didn't want her to have the baby, they clubbed together and virtually forced her to England, accompanied by her mother for an abortion.
We are still friends, she still regrets that decision and at the time wanted to have the baby, if she had support at the time she would have had the baby.
She now lives in regret of a decision forced on her, even though she now has a family, her biggest regret in life is that abortion.

This is unfortunate, and will happen. However, the majority of cases will be made by informed women who know that they can't go through a pregnancy, for whatever reason, and will therefore have an abortion. It's all about weighing the harms with the benefits. Access to safe and legal abortion, without having to pay a fortune, outweighs the harms of a few cases like this.

ohnonotgmail · 04-01-2018 01:18PM

Edward M wrote: »

Fair enough too, I can be compartmentalised as judgemental in that sense.
What I mean in reference to that is that I don't judge those who would openly admit to having an abortion. If they feel they did the right thing then don't mind anyone who accuses or judges them of other.
Just an instance I know of, a young girl 17, fairly close acquaintaince of mine some years ago, got pregnant, her boyfriend was about the same age at the time, her family didn't want her to have the baby, boyfriends family didn't want her to have the baby, they clubbed together and virtually forced her to England, accompanied by her mother for an abortion.
We are still friends, she still regrets that decision and at the time wanted to have the baby, if she had support at the time she would have had the baby.
She now lives in regret of a decision forced on her, even though she now has a family, her biggest regret in life is that abortion.

and none of that means that another woman should not have the choice of an abortion.

....... · 04-01-2018 01:19PM

This post has been deleted.

Beta Ray Bill · 04-01-2018 01:23PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This country's f*cked...

January · 04-01-2018 01:43PM

grahambo wrote: »

This country's f*cked...

They can now, but they used to not be able to. Not that that really makes a difference. Can you imagine ever having to explain to a child that mammy and daddy are having a baby but can't keep it because they can't afford it so it's going to live with someone else and you'll never see it?

dr.fuzzenstein · 04-01-2018 01:47PM

Even if abortion was available, I'm sure it would be purely academic. This is Ireland.
There will firstly be a month long consultation and counselling process for any woman wanting an abortion and at the end it would be "so, that is everything in order then, unfortunately there is a bit of a waiting list. I have booked you in for an appointment at 8 am on October the 22nd in 3 year's time, is that OK with you?"

Beta Ray Bill · 04-01-2018 01:48PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Even if abortion was available, I'm sure it would be purely academic. This is Ireland.
There will firstly be a month long consultation and counselling process for any woman wanting an abortion and at the end it would "so, that is everything in order then, unfortunately there is a bit of a waiting list. I have booked you in for an appointment at 8 am on October the 22nd in 3 year's time, is that OK with you?"

You're probably right.

....... · 04-01-2018 01:50PM

This post has been deleted.

January · 04-01-2018 01:50PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Even if abortion was available, I'm sure it would be purely academic. This is Ireland.
There will firstly be a month long consultation and counselling process for any woman wanting an abortion and at the end it would be "so, that is everything in order then, unfortunately there is a bit of a waiting list. I have booked you in for an appointment at 8 am on October the 22nd in 3 year's time, is that OK with you?"

Again, before 12 weeks you take a pill so it will be a GP appointment and a prescription to bring to a pharmacist. No waiting list required.

January · 04-01-2018 01:51PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course, I was just giving one possible scenario (I suppose related to why I had my abortion), there are tonnes of different ones out there. Adoption is an option for some, but only a very small minority.

SusieBlue · 04-01-2018 01:53PM

grahambo wrote: »

You're probably right.

I just wanted to say that I appreciate your posts so far and can respect that you are in two minds about it and can see it from both sides.
I know that I myself am very black and white about the whole thing, but its nice to read intelligent posts from someone who is somewhere in the middle.
It makes for good discussion and debate and we haven't had many other contributors like that, so far.

....... · 04-01-2018 01:59PM

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato · 04-01-2018 02:17PM

In all areas of life, some adults make bad choices or ones which they may later regret. We can't use this as an excuse to take agency away from all adults or else we would be living in a totalitarian hell hole. Yet some are prepared to do this to women. Expect lots more of the "abortion regret" stories in the coming months - just like the handful of gay people opposed to marriage equality kept getting wheeled out.

end of the road · 04-01-2018 05:48PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

This. Also, domestic adoption in this country is pretty much non existent anyway. Children can only be adopted after spending many, many years in the foster care system. By the time they are teenagers, no one wants them, because they have built up years worth of social and behavioural issues.
And at that, it is a tedious, expensive and extremely emotionally taxing endeavour which is why most Irish couples looking to adopt do so internationally. Because its cheaper and easier.

this could and should be changed. it's not a justification for abortion on demand and abortion on demand is a non-solution looking for a problem that can be changed without abortion on demand being availible.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I honestly don't see how giving birth to a child to give it a life sentence in the care system is preferable to abortion, with no adult around in their life long enough to give a sh*t, but that's just me.

because the issues with the care system and adoption and the rest can be changed. if the unborn baby is killed then they aren't able to be potentially given the good life they deserve, they don't get to live. again, this seems to be another problem looking for abortion to be the solution to, when we can and should be solving the issues instead.

Edward M wrote: »

Fair enough too, I can be compartmentalised as judgemental in that sense.
What I mean in reference to that is that I don't judge those who would openly admit to having an abortion. If they feel they did the right thing then don't mind anyone who accuses or judges them of other.
Just an instance I know of, a young girl 17, fairly close acquaintaince of mine some years ago, got pregnant, her boyfriend was about the same age at the time, her family didn't want her to have the baby, boyfriends family didn't want her to have the baby, they clubbed together and virtually forced her to England, accompanied by her mother for an abortion.
We are still friends, she still regrets that decision and at the time wanted to have the baby, if she had support at the time she would have had the baby.
She now lives in regret of a decision forced on her, even though she now has a family, her biggest regret in life is that abortion.

i don't know about you but that sounds like forced abortion to me, which should be illegal.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

This is unfortunate, and will happen. However, the majority of cases will be made by informed women who know that they can't go through a pregnancy, for whatever reason, and will therefore have an abortion. It's all about weighing the harms with the benefits. Access to safe and legal abortion, without having to pay a fortune, outweighs the harms of a few cases like this.

the thing is it really doesn't. if it costing a fortune means that the likes of the case edward m mentions is less by not having abortion on demand legal within the irish state then that is a good thing and outweighs wanting a cheaper abortion and availability within ireland.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and none of that means that another woman should not have the choice of an abortion.

a woman does have the choice. she just cannot avail of a non-necessary abortion within the state. i'm sure there are other procedures that aren't availible within the irish state for which people have to go abroad. in fact i'd bet a couple of those are ones that are necessary and should be availible in ireland, unlike abortion on demand.

January wrote: »

They can now, but they used to not be able to. Not that that really makes a difference. Can you imagine ever having to explain to a child that mammy and daddy are having a baby but can't keep it because they can't afford it so it's going to live with someone else and you'll never see it?

killing it certainly would be a lot worse.

January · 04-01-2018 05:53PM

end of the road wrote: »

killing it certainly would be a lot worse.

Not in my case. I didn't kill anything btw, I aborted a pregnancy.

....... · 04-01-2018 06:03PM

This post has been deleted.

kylith · 04-01-2018 06:30PM

Edward M wrote: »

Fair enough too, I can be compartmentalised as judgemental in that sense.
What I mean in reference to that is that I don't judge those who would openly admit to having an abortion. If they feel they did the right thing then don't mind anyone who accuses or judges them of other.
Just an instance I know of, a young girl 17, fairly close acquaintaince of mine some years ago, got pregnant, her boyfriend was about the same age at the time, her family didn't want her to have the baby, boyfriends family didn't want her to have the baby, they clubbed together and virtually forced her to England, accompanied by her mother for an abortion.
We are still friends, she still regrets that decision and at the time wanted to have the baby, if she had support at the time she would have had the baby.
She now lives in regret of a decision forced on her, even though she now has a family, her biggest regret in life is that abortion.

That's a terrible shame.

I know it's hard to do when you're afraid, Mammy is right beside you, and it could ruin your relationship with your family, but if she had told the doctor that she didn't want the termination they wouldn't have performed it. No doctor will perform a non-lifesaving procedure on a person who is old enough to understand what's going on and the ramifications of it if that person does not want it performed.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

In all areas of life, some adults make bad choices or ones which they may later regret. We can't use this as an excuse to take agency away from all adults or else we would be living in a totalitarian hell hole. Yet some are prepared to do this to women. Expect lots more of the "abortion regret" stories in the coming months - just like the handful of gay people opposed to marriage equality kept getting wheeled out.

What anti-choice people forget is that for every 'I regret my abortion' story there is an 'I regret not having an abortion' story.

SusieBlue · 04-01-2018 06:30PM

end of the road wrote: »

this could and should be changed. it's not a justification for abortion on demand and abortion on demand is a non-solution looking for a problem that can be changed without abortion on demand being availible.

because the issues with the care system and adoption and the rest can be changed. if the unborn baby is killed then they aren't able to be potentially given the good life they deserve, they don't get to live. again, this seems to be another problem looking for abortion to be the solution to, when we can and should be solving the issues instead.

It isn't going to change any time soon, if ever. And even if it did, why would anyone go through with a pregnancy just to hand their child over to the state?
Even if the system was a LOT better, a child should still have at least 1 functional, stable, loving parent.
Why should an unwanted child be born just so they can be handed over to the social services? How is that a positive outcome, for the mother, knowing the life her child will face, or for the child, growing up with no stable figure knowing they weren't wanted by their natural parent(s)?

Whether it is better or not is a matter of opinion. A girl in my class in school was in foster care and after seeing what she went through I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, let alone an innocent child.
She was moved constantly from home to home, beat up by the other foster children, the "real" children of the foster parents got treated far better and she literally had no one looking out for her apart from her social worker.
She did not have a good, stable childhood. She missed out on a lot of love that caused her issues in later life. It just isn't a life I'd choose for myself or for a child.

end of the road · 04-01-2018 06:57PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i already answered your question by informing you such posts are in the thread. it's better for you to read them yourself.

kylith wrote: »

That's a terrible shame.

I know it's hard to do when you're afraid, Mammy is right beside you, and it could ruin your relationship with your family, but if she had told the doctor that she didn't want the termination they wouldn't have performed it. No doctor will perform a non-lifesaving procedure on a person who is old enough to understand what's going on and the ramifications of it if that person does not want it performed.

What anti-choice people forget is that for every 'I regret my abortion' story there is an 'I regret not having an abortion' story.

i would wager there aren't very many i regret not having an abortion stories. i'm sure there are some but i would be surprised if they match up to the amount of i regret having an abortion stories.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It isn't going to change any time soon, if ever. And even if it did, why would anyone go through with a pregnancy just to hand their child over to the state?
Even if the system was a LOT better, a child should still have at least 1 functional, stable, loving parent.
Why should an unwanted child be born just so they can be handed over to the social services? How is that a positive outcome, for the mother, knowing the life her child will face, or for the child, growing up with no stable figure knowing they weren't wanted by their natural parent(s)?

how is that unborn child being killed better then changing the system and insuring they go to a loving stable home once born should the parent decide they do not wish to look after it? improving the system brings greater benefits then allowing for those children to be simply aborted and then we just wash our hands of the system as will likely happen.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Whether it is better or not is a matter of opinion.

the thing is, as much as you may not understand it, it really isn't a matter of opinion. a system where the child is matched with a suitable home and where there is complete oversight of the adoptive/foster parents will always outweigh simply having abortion on demand as the solution.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

A girl in my class in school was in foster care and after seeing what she went through I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, let alone an innocent child.
She was moved constantly from home to home, beat up by the other foster children, the "real" children of the foster parents got treated far better and she literally had no one looking out for her apart from her social worker.
She did not have a good, stable childhood. She missed out on a lot of love that caused her issues in later life. It just isn't a life I'd choose for myself or for a child.

that girl's situation was absolutely aweful, how she was treated was beyond contempt and there was no justification for it. social services are to blame for not insuring those parents were suitable foster parents.
but i cannot and will not except the idea that abortion on demand is the solution to solving that problem. it's just not. the solution is improving the systems vastly and insuring they work.

One eyed Jack · 04-01-2018 07:00PM

pilly wrote: »

Have you a source for this evidence from other countries please?

That's a fair request, but first of all it's worth noting this -

The adoption vs. abortion myth

Basically any correlation between a reduction or increase in either abortion or children in care is misleading in the first place. Worth noting too -

Cory L. Richards is senior vice president and vice president for public policy at the Guttmacher Institute, an independent think tank in the field of sexual and reproductive health.

That's the Institute that published the report that mrkiscool2 produced earlier that was about 10 years out of date. It's not that I am biased against any use of statistics from the Guttermacher Institute itself (they really are the go-to peeps for this kind of stuff), it's that the report was simply 10 years out of date.

Ok so with that out of the way, if we look at the trends for both abortion and children in care in both the US and the UK, we see that they both increase and decrease in tandem! That is to say that, historically at least, when the rate of abortion rises, so does the number of children in care! When the rate of abortion decreases, so too does the number of children in care!

So, when I said this -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That wasn't the original claim at all though. The original claim had nothing to do with adoption, it related to the numbers of children in care if we had or hadn't abortion in Ireland, and I said there was simply no way of knowing whether it would make any difference, but the evidence from other countries suggests that it doesn't.

It's entirely true to say that there's simply no way of knowing whether it would or wouldn't make a difference in Ireland to the numbers of children in care, but if we look at the evidence from other countries, the evidence suggests that it doesn't. I would suggest that the figures for the number of children in care would be the same as they would be now whether or not we had abortion in Ireland.

Sources:
Children looked after in England (including adoption and care leavers) year ending 31 March 2015, Department for Education, England
Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2015, Summary information from the abortion notification forms returned to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2017). Foster care statistics 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.
Here’s Why the Number of Abortions in the US Has Hit a Record Low, Vice News, 2015

04-01-2018 07:11PM

I think it would be fairer to say that for every "I regret my abortion" story there are maybe nine "It was the right decision for me" stories.

NuMarvel · 04-01-2018 07:17PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it would be fairer to say that for every "I regret my abortion" story there are maybe nine "It was the right decision for me" stories.

Research put the ratio at 1 out of 20.

Ninety-five percent of women who have had abortions do not regret the decision to terminate their pregnancies, according to a study published last week in the multidisciplinary academic journal PLOS ONE.

Source: http://time.com/3956781/women-abortion-regret-reproductive-health/.

Birdie Num Num · 04-01-2018 07:24PM

kylith wrote: »

What anti-choice people forget is that for every 'I regret my abortion' story there is an 'I regret not having an abortion' story.

I've never heard one but that said I am sure they are out there, can't imagine there are many. Not something a mother is going to freely admit to a child either I'd guess. I only know of two friends who had abortions, both had regret but guess they believed it was the right decision for them at the time. They were both young. Subsequently one of them was quite relieved they didn't go for that option again when it was asked of them.

SusieBlue · 04-01-2018 07:33PM

end of the road wrote: »

how is that unborn child being killed better then changing the system and insuring they go to a loving stable home once born should the parent decide they do not wish to look after it? improving the system brings greater benefits then allowing for those children to be simply aborted and then we just wash our hands of the system as will likely happen.

You missed the point. I didn’t say the system shouldn’t be changed. I said it won’t change for a long time, if ever. In the mean time, while we are waiting for that positive change to our appalling system, abortion would be preferable for a lot of people.

the thing is, as much as you may not understand it, it really isn't a matter of opinion. a system where the child is matched with a suitable home and where there is complete oversight of the adoptive/foster parents will always outweigh simply having abortion on demand as the solution.

Part two of you missing the point.
Firstly, don’t be so condescending as to imply that I don’t understand the situation.
Of course being put up for adoption into a loving home with two parents and a stable upbringing is preferable to abortion. But see my point above. We don’t have a system like that in place. It’ll be years, if ever, before the system is rectified to an acceptable standard.
Therefore once again, I will repeat, abortion would be preferable, for some people.

that girl's situation was absolutely aweful, how she was treated was beyond contempt and there was no justification for it. social services are to blame for not insuring those parents were suitable foster parents.
but i cannot and will not except the idea that abortion on demand is the solution to solving that problem. it's just not. the solution is improving the systems vastly and insuring they work.

That is your opinion, not a fact. I see things differently.

eviltwin · 04-01-2018 07:49PM

Adoption has always been an option. Some people talk like it's some secret thing no one knows about. I think every single woman who has an abortion knows she can put the child up for adoption, that so few do speaks volumes about what those women want. I couldn't avail of adoption without putting my existing child at risk - I was married - but it wouldn't have mattered or changed my decision if it was an option. I wasn't going to stay pregnant to make other people happy. No regrets either.

end of the road · 04-01-2018 07:49PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You missed the point. I didn’t say the system shouldn’t be changed. I said it won’t change for a long time, if ever. In the mean time, while we are waiting for that positive change to our appalling system, abortion would be preferable for a lot of people.

Part two of you missing the point.
Firstly, don’t be so condescending as to imply that I don’t understand the situation.
Of course being put up for adoption into a loving home with two parents and a stable upbringing is preferable to abortion. But see my point above. We don’t have a system like that in place. It’ll be years, if ever, before the system is rectified to an acceptable standard.
Therefore once again, I will repeat, abortion would be preferable, for some people.

That is your opinion, not a fact. I see things differently.

it is a fact though. i understand some may not like it and that's okay, but it definitely is true that abortion on demand just isn't the solution to the problems with the system.
abortion on demand may be preferable for some but it's not for society as a whole, it will become the default solution to every problem as far as the state would be concerned. that is why instead of calling for abortion on demand, forcing through the improvements to the system is the best option.
so i haven't missed your point and i wasn't condescending, i was suggesting that maybe you don't understand where i was coming from in terms of my points. if you do, great, if you don't, that's okay.

One eyed Jack · 04-01-2018 07:58PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your efforts to goad me into saying something that will get me banned from the thread are transparent at this stage, but suffice to say that while you might think there is something to be ashamed of in being pro-life, I don't, nor is there any shame in being pro-choice, so either/or whatever, it makes no odds to me tbh.

With that said, I've been trying to think all day what could you possibly have meant when you suggested that arguments made regarding repealing the 8th amendment on this site have been successful, and the only reasoning I could come up with, and please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is the whole infantile nonsense argument about sentient rights as opposed to human rights. Obviously if you agree with a point of view expressed, then you're going to deem it a successful argument, but my definition of a successful argument is one which influences a person to change their perspective to a position the opposite of one they previously held, so on that basis, the argument about sentient rights has simply failed.

Now, the reason it doesn't even get off the ground in the first place is because it's a red herring. If we were to acknowledge sentient rights, then we would have to give the same rights to other animals as we do humans, and the logical conclusion of that philosophy is that humans would then become vegan, hemp wearing hippies, because it would be unethical to kill sentient beings. Thankfully, the only people who espouse that particular philosophy are generally vegan, hemp wearing hippies; think the Occupy movement types of a few years back. It failed, and so would any ideological argument about sentient rights as opposed to human rights.

volchitsa wrote: »

The girl whose case came to light a few months ago was wrongly incarcerated for asking for an abortion on suicide grounds.
Not for "varied" reasons.

That's speculation at best, if we're talking about the same case, and I wouldn't use it in an argument relating to abortion particularly when she was 17 weeks pregnant at the time which would be beyond the 12 week limit being mooted by the Citizen's Assembly.

volchitsa wrote: »

As for Savita, the expert who wrote the report confirmed only recently that his view was that without the law, she would have lived.

They messed up her care after, true. But if the 8th hadn't been in place she wouldn't have had to wait as she did.

I wouldn't take that too seriously though tbh, because it is literally only his view, an opinion. There's simply no way of knowing whether or not with or without the 8th amendment in place whether or not she would have lived or died. According to what's actually written in the HSE report though, Savita died as a result of cardiac arrest brought on by a sepsis infection that wasn't detected in the first place -

The intensive care consultant performed a transoesophageal echo. This investigation may have added new information as to the cause of the patient’s deteriorating cardiac status, despite earlier derived values suggesting a high cardiac output state. The results raised a number of possibilities, including the possibility of a pulmonary embolism. The finding of poor left ventricular function may have reflected a sepsis induced cardiomyopathy. Should post mortem findings show insignificant or no coronary artery disease flow limitation, the significant Troponin T (cardiac enzyme) elevation of the 26th and 27th October may support a diagnosis of sepsis induced cardiomyopathy. The decision to treat the possibility of a pulmonary embolism with anticoagulation is reasonable based on these findings, but with little prospect of success. The patient's on-going clinical deterioration despite all these measures culminated ultimately in a cardiac arrest. It would be unusual to have success at cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a context of the high levels of intensive care management and interventions required to sustain life through that day.

It's also worth noting from that same report though -

Meaning of “unborn” in Article 40.3.3°

Geoghegan J made the point even more briefly as follows:

“Both on a simple reading but even more so given its historical context, I would take the view that “the unborn” refers to a child in the womb not yet born.”

I could just as easily say that if Savita hadn't developed sepsis she would have lived, but realistically speaking it's really a moot point now as there were a number of contributing factors which led to her death, but using single cases in determining policy regarding abortion is a terrible idea anyway, so I don't.

SusieBlue · 04-01-2018 09:23PM

end of the road wrote: »

it is a fact though. i understand some may not like it and that's okay, but it definitely is true that abortion on demand just isn't the solution to the problems with the system.
abortion on demand may be preferable for some but it's not for society as a whole, it will become the default solution to every problem as far as the state would be concerned. that is why instead of calling for abortion on demand, forcing through the improvements to the system is the best option.
so i haven't missed your point and i wasn't condescending, i was suggesting that maybe you don't understand where i was coming from in terms of my points. if you do, great, if you don't, that's okay.

It isn’t a fact. It simply isn’t. It isn’t definitely true.
It is your OPINION which is NOT a fact. The sooner you stop confusing the two the sooner this thread can have some constructive debate.

Right now you are just doing your usual detailing tactic of ranting off opinions while labeling them as factual statements.

....... · 04-01-2018 09:35PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 04-01-2018 09:39PM

This post has been deleted.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments