The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

end of the road wrote: »

because it's not going to happen. so i would be campaigning for something that won't happen. however campaigning for the status quo where abortion on demand isn't availible in ireland and those who want it can go to england is actually doable.

So we've gone right around the carousel and we've just stopped at the NIMBYisms again.

I agree with Pilly, this isn't half getting repetitive.

end of the road wrote: »

the pro-life campaign aren't going to give up the fight just because the referendum supposibly passes.

And EOTR finally reveals his identity:

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand doesn't effect her bodily autonomy. she is not accessing her bodily autonomy by killing the unborn, which is a separate entity and a separate life ultimately, which will rely on the mother for a time.

[Insert Princess Bride's Inigo Montoya meme here]

end of the road wrote: »

well i'm not as i don't engage in trolling. having a different viewpoint to you isn't trolling. this is basic stuff.

And it's my viewpoint that anyone claiming the pro life movement would support repealing the 8th in cases of abortion other than on request is trolling.

They had conniptions about abortion being legislated for just to save a woman's life for crying out loud. I can't see them favouring repeal in any circumstances, regardless of the possibility of abortion on demand.

end of the road wrote: »

i don't agree. if people believe it to be murder that is their view and they are entitled to it. if it's insensitive then that can't be helped but it will be nothing near as insensitive as killing the unborn outside extreme circumstances.

I don't think they believe it's murder though. They're just shouting murder at the top of their lungs to stymie debate and to hurt people. But they don't really believe it.

Because if they did, they'd surely be doing a lot more to stop it. They'd be demanding life sentences for people who have abortions. They'd be campaigning for ways to legally stop people travelling or arranging abortions. They'd be doing a lot more than they are currently doing which is..... nothing.

end of the road wrote: »

the referendum passing isn't going to make the pro-life campaign go away. they are going nowhere, this isn't going to be a repeat of the SSM referendum.

You might be right, but we barely hear anything anymore from pro life groups about the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. For all the protests and flyers they had going at the time, they're remarkably quiet now about legislation that they said allowed "abortion up to birth".

end of the road wrote: »

no it doesn't. you can support something being illegal but understand that the odd time it is such that sanctions can't be enforced.

But that's not what you're saying.

You're dancing around it and avoiding the question because you don't want abortions, but you hate the idea of sending women to jail for it.

You've explicitly stated that you're fine with there being no legal sanction. Therefore you support abortion being available.

It's possible to not like something being available, but if you don't believe that the state should prevent it from taking place, then you implicitly support its availability no matter how distasteful you may find it.

You cannot say that "X should not be allowed, but the state should ignore it where it does happen". That's pure mealy-mouthed, hand-wringing. Making statements without the conviction to back them up.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

So we've gone right around the carousel and we've just stopped at the NIMBYisms again.

I agree with Pilly, this isn't half getting repetitive.

there are no nimby anything. the topic of abortion by it's nature is going to be somewhat repetitive. and in reality abortion is the big part of the 8th being repealed hence it is going to get more of a discussion then the other aspects, which everyone seems to be in agreement that they need to be solved.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

this is inaccurate. i'm not interested in "beating" anyone or forcing anyone into submission. however the reality is the topic of abortion is going to be somewhat repetitive by it's nature as there aren't many angles it can be covered from. abortion is the main part of the repeal the 8th campaign that will be discussed as it's the issue where there is some actual real disagreement. i understand that you want an echo-chamber where only similar views to you are aired, but rightly, that isn't going to happen. if it's what you want, boards isn't the place for you.
if i was a bot or a controled account/shill who was out to destroy threads then i wouldn't be here. the fact is i'm just another poster expressing an opinion, and no amount of personal attacks by yourself and others will change that reality. none of the allegations you make against me will stick because they are nonsense, made up in an attempt to bate me and it isn't going to work. being the decent individual that i am, i'm not going to engage in getting personal with posters just because i disagree with them and i'm even letting all such attacks go given that i understand the topic is contentious. you need to accept that there are people with different views to you.

seamus wrote: »

You've explicitly stated that you're fine with there being no legal sanction. Therefore you support abortion being available.

you can be against something but understand a legal sanction may not be enforcible. so therefore the fact i understand a legal sanction isn't enforcible, doesn't mean i simply support abortion. i have stated that i am in favour of abortion in absolute extreme circumstances however anything outside that is unnecessary and those who want it on unnecessary grounds will have to fund that procedure themselves.

seamus wrote: »

It's possible to not like something being available, but if you don't believe that the state should prevent it from taking place, then you implicitly support its availability no matter how distasteful you may find it.

no, you don't. this is untrue and doesn't stand up. your argument completely fails i'm afraid.

NuMarvel wrote: »

You might be right, but we barely hear anything anymore from pro life groups about the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. For all the protests and flyers they had going at the time, they're remarkably quiet now about legislation that they said allowed "abortion up to birth".

This could be the basis of a Waterford Whispers-style article.


Things The Catholic Right Said Were Going To Destroy Society And Morals But Nothing Happened And Now Nobody Gives A Damn


Marriage equality
POLDPA
Morning after pill
Divorce
Legalising homosexuality
Contraception
Equal pay
Married women in jobs

...etc...



For extra hypocrisy points - a few years back they were protesting against the morning after pill because "it was abortion".
Now they're saying "we don't need abortion because we have the morning after pill"

The catholic conservative momement is really just a massive effort to troll all of society - if only broadcasters and the media would treat them as such and call them out on their hypocrisy and constant spouting of nonsense.

It's also worth noting that 'family solidarity', 'christian party' etc. types when going for election, do well to get a couple of hundred votes. They're a bit like the Germans in Italy in 1944-45, knowing the war is lost and most people detest them, but fighting fierce rearguard battles all the way and not giving a damn about the harm their campaigns cause.

Odhinn wrote: »

Imposing travel on irish citizens

He's hardly encouraging anyone to do so, let alone forcing them.

for a medical procedure

This is somewhere between euphemism and deception - quite the specious argument. The 'medical procedure' ie being torn apart is actually for the baby.

end of the road wrote: »

agreed. however this isn't what is happening here. what is happening here is the state is insuring that bar extreme circumstances, the unborn cannot be killed within it.

You are being deliberately obtuse. By not having abortion in Ireland, the state are forcing women who want to procure one to travel to avail of the medical procedure they feel they need. That is exactly what is happening.

January wrote: »

A fetus is not torn apart during an abortion.

Does it always come out in one go so? It's not a trip to the fun centre, and my point still stands.

Doctor Jimbob wrote:

A better way to reduce the amount of abortions happening would be to have better sexual education, better access to methods preventing conception in people who don't want kids (i.e. no guilting people out of sterilisation procedures), and better support for struggling parents. But of course most of that would involve having mature conversations about dirty, immoral, sex. The horror.

Agreed. I never had any formal sex education.

I figured it out for myself/ used Google.
There are many forms of contraception for women but can be expensive or ineffective for many people.

So many of us rely on condoms. I think they should be freely available from STI clinics.

Is the reason for poor sex education a result of the Catholic run schools?

end of the road wrote: »

it often is during a sergical abortion.

Where abortion is accessible in one's own country, it's more often a medical abortion. 62% of all abortions in Britain in 2016 were medical abortions and 71% of those were in the first 9 weeks.

However, you have stumbled onto another interesting outcome of the ban on abortion; it makes surgical abortions more likely for those who travel. While 38% of English and Welsh women had a surgical abortion, 78% of Irish women and 76% of Northern Irish women had one.

Digging into the British statistics brings up more interesting information. For example, a ban makes later term abortions more likely. For English and Welsh women:
-81% of abortions were carried out in the first 9 weeks
-11% were between 10 to 12 weeks,
- 7% were in weeks 13 to 19, and
- 2% were week 20 or later.

For non-residents, it's a different story:
-67% of all abortions were carried out in the first 9 weeks
-15% were between 10 to 12 weeks,
-12% were in weeks 13 to 19, and
- 7% were week 20 or later.

The ban makes it twice as likely that a woman will have an abortion at week 13 or later. It makes it 3.5 times more likely she'll have one after week 20.

So to recap; the ban doesn't stop abortions at all, just relocates them or makes them unsafe. From the statistics available, the ban means an Irish woman is twice as likely to have a surgical abortion, and more than 3 times more likely to have an abortion after the half way point of the pregnancy.

Edward M wrote: »

That's a skewed figure re non residents.
It says non residents, not specifically Irish.
Abortion in England or UK if you prefer, is allowed up to a much later date than a lot of countries. For instance in France its 12 weeks, so the higher percentage is not only due to Irish people I feel.
Its grand throwing out figures, but relative to the Irish situation these figures are not accurate.

They're the figures I found in the report, but you're welcome to look for the Irish ones if you wish. However, Irish residents made up 68% of all non-resident abortions in Britain (not the UK because Northern Ireland has similar laws to ours), so if just one country makes up more than two thirds of the numbers, then chances are there isn't likely to be much variance in the statistics.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I vaugely remember having people come in and talk to us about sexual health and contraceptives, but it was a one day thing. Considering it's such a huge part of a young adult's life, there should really be more of a focus on it. Could have improved since though, that was over ten years ago now.

Is it though? I don't think anyone can make generalisations like that to be fair. In my experience, young people are more concerned about their exam grades than sex and sexuality. Of course your mileage may differ, but that's my point. Young people are exposed to plenty of sex and sexuality education outside the school, and I've always believed relationships and sex educational is the parents responsibility rather than the poor effort that's put into it in the class environment (although in saying that, my own son's teacher was young and very open to discussion and yes, they covered abortion in a Catholic school, in an objective manner at least).

I can't say nationally whether it has or hasn't improved, but my point is that relationships and sex education is and should be, primarily the responsibility of the parents, and children are exposed to relationships and sexuality outside of the school. This idea that whatever they learn in school is all they'll ever know, ignores realities like I walked into the living room the other night and the young lad was watching 50 shades on TV. I straight up told him turn off that shìte. It wasn't because I'm a conservative Catholic prude that has any hang-ups at all about sex; it was simply because I would never want him to develop the idea that he should avoid sex by virtue of having been given the impression that it could ever possibly be so incredibly mundane and boring :pac:

I don't think it's fair to blame it entirely on schools being Catholic run, although I'd say it plays a part. I also remember being shown an incredibly inaccurate and graphic pro life propaganda video as part of religion class though. That one I'm quite happy to blame fully on the Catholic influence.

I fully agree with you that the Catholic Church does and has played it's part in influencing how we think about sex and sexuality in this country (hell in many countries! :pac:), but of course at an individual level you're going to view that as either a negative or a positive. I've always thought of it as a positive overall, but of course I'm not naive enough to ignore the fact that other people definitely do not share my perspective.

In relation to education at least, I can say that EOTR is on the same page with many people here when it comes to the influence of the RCC in their own schools, and indeed the State providing for of education, I know because we've previously had that discussion on other threads, so to see all sorts of accusations being levelled at them on the assumption that they are in league with the Catholic Church, or to suggest that their ideas are solely influenced by the Catholic Church, is just mistaken and actually more divisive than helpful.

In relation to healthcare in Ireland in general, well, again overall it's actually good IMO, but there are of course elements of it at an individual level that could sorely do with being shaken up. For example the assumption that because I refused a blood transfusion I must be a Jehovah Witness :pac: In saying that though, even though I disagreed with my consultant, he was able to maintain professional standards and didn't mock or dismiss my concerns, and the outcome of the procedure I had done today (total hip replacement) has been positive overall. What I'm driving at is that just because someone disagrees with you or you disagree with them, it doesn't give anyone the right to treat anyone like dirt, and then out of the other side of their mouths complain that their perceived human rights are being violated. It's an inherently selfish and self-centred attitude, and they really shouldn't be surprised when they claim that Irish society at least is rife with racism, sexism, and that we live in a "rape culture". Most people simply can't relate to that sort of extreme view because it is no reflection of anything they experience in their daily lives.

The above is also one of the reasons I detest the influence of the media in this discussion because they fuel the polarisation of different viewpoints. It's called propaganda, and I have no doubt that if the 8th is repealed, on it's anniversary a year later we will see headlines like "Rates of abortion have increased 300%", which sounds shocking, until we actually consider that that's exactly what one would expect, given that I think (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going off memory), that the official numbers now are only in the order of 25 or less than that every year. Naturally that rate should increase, but I also have a feeling that like our suicide statistics, the figure given will be there or thereabouts every year. I don't expect any "floodgates" to open, and I think the media has a responsibility to, well, actually be responsible in how they report on individual cases. I don't expect them to, I expect the usual clickbaity headlines, but it would actually be nice if they did. I expect the media to continue to polarise the discussion and wind people up, because that's actually what sells papers, or encourages people to pay to access content behind a paywall. Personally, I wouldn't give the Irish Times a cent, same as I've never given the Church a cent in mass every Sunday. I actually agree with the point of view that says if parents want to educate their children, they should have to fund it themselves, as I don't believe it should be the States responsibility to provide for anyone's education. That would be a violation of a child's right to education though, so I don't foresee that at least ever happening in this country, which IMO is wrong but just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean that I should be exempt from paying taxes so the State can afford to fund public services for everyone in Irish society, regardless of whether or not we disagree as individuals on an individual level on the kind of society we would wish to live in, or shape that society for future generations to come.