nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

volchitsa

All of that ignores the single main issue that Pilly and I were pointing out here, which is that women have been threatened with arrest for not "consenting" to medical procedures. And these are not just women who wanted abortions, by the way : because of the 8th amendment, women have had various medical procedures done without their consent and even when the procedure went wrong and caused her and her baby significant harm, a woman who sued had costs awarded against her (Ciara Hamilton).

You refuse to acknowledge that what really matters there is that you could choose to have a procedure, or refuse to have one. That's why your point about risking your life is completely different to the situation a pregnant woman finds herself in. If I choose to risk my life, that's one thing. But the law doesn't allow me to make that decision, unlike you. Especially when my health is not important enough to be worth considering at all.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

But you had that choice. You weren't informed that this is being done despite the fact that a lower risk procedure exists.

It's really strange that you appear to think that an anecdote in which you made a choice like that can help justify the removal of the same choice from someone else.

pilly wrote: »

That's very interesting Jack, you feel you've the right to make those kind of decisions but you don't feel a woman should be afforded the same rights.

Bit of a contradiction No?

Great minds think alike

But seriously, it was as direct an answer as I could relate, to a very specific question -

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But it doesn't. What has actually happened is medical staff are so unclear about the law they wait until the balance of probability means the women is over 50% likely to die - would you like those odds if it was your life on the line?

And I said that I was the wrong person to ask that question, because I would take those odds, and it was an incredibly foolish thing to do, and as I said, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else, so on that basis I would never think to encourage anyone else to do something so stupid.

Now, there's no possible way I could ever imagine myself as a pregnant woman, I couldn't even relate to my wife's experience of being pregnant because as someone else said different women experience pregnancy differently, and I can't imagine two pregnancies were ever the same for two different women. Long story short - pregnancy is a complex and completely different set of circumstances to refusing a blood transfusion, but they can overlap, as in this case -

Pregnant Jehovah's Witness' decision to refuse treatment 'harrowing' for hospital staff after mother and baby die

Obviously her principles were based upon her religious beliefs, which I would entirely respect, and even though I completely disagreed with the potential outcome of her decision on a personal level, I would still absolutely support her decision, and I would never support the Irish State interfering with her decision in order to vindicate and protect the right to life of the unborn, effectively riding roughshod over her human rights. I have a feeling based upon precedent set in numerous previous cases that they would do so in the interests of the unborn, and then expect that the woman should continue to raise that child according to her religious beliefs, knowing that the State could step in at any moment in the interests of protecting the child from it's mother and everything that child was raised to believe, such as in happened in this case -

Jehovah parents lose transfusion ruling

volchista I was aware that lower risk procedures exist, I had an autologous transfusion done when they put steel pins in, but when I asked about the availability of it, I was told they don't do that any more as it's too expensive. I later found out that some hospitals actually still do it, but I wasn't prepared to risk switching consultants and hospitals again at that stage.

Now, with all that said, my decisions that I made for myself in those circumstances, could in no way be related to a woman who would wish to terminate her pregnancy with the outcome that the foetus would cease to develop. I wouldn't want to deny her the opportunity to make that decision at an individual level, and I would do my utmost to support her if that's what she chose to do.

But, and this is where the contentious part arises - I would not, and could never support something like that being implemented as national public policy. I used to argue for every woman to have the right to terminate her pregnancy without restrictions on the basis that we have to trust women to be able to make decisions for themselves. I still do, at an individual level, trust women to make those sorts of decisions for themselves, but the evidence I've seen both historically and from other countries suggests that one group in society is disproportionately affected by abortion, and that is the group that would most wish that they didn't have to have abortions, and that they were in a position to raise a child, but unfortunately they feel that the support just isn't there for them, and in cases like this -

Fair play to this judge
Pregnant woman made homeless before Christmas

It would be nigh on impossible to convince them that they just might be wrong when all they can see in their immediate and long term future is a life of grinding poverty and misery for them and their child (or children, as the case may be). It's all too easy to convince them that it would be in theirs and their child's best interests (I don't ever use the term foetus or any other scientific and medical terminology because they look at me like I'm a cold, uncaring monster and shut down immediately, end of any hope of having a conversation, so I go with whatever term they use), if she were to terminate her pregnancy as soon as possible and I would support in whatever decision she makes for herself. I would hope that she would trust that I'm as good as my word, but I don't expect that she should, given that she doesn't know me.

The thing is that I feel that in repealing the 8th amendment, I personally don't see it as doing women any favours, I see it as allowing and encouraging the most impoverished women to remain poor, because with each generation there is the chance that their expectations increase when their parents are more involved, and this allows for opportunities for greater social mobility for their children, effectively lifting themselves out of poverty through better access to education and staying in education, just for starters, gaining secure employment and having more opportunities for employment, and better conditions of employment, in order that they may meet the higher expectations again of the next generation, and hopefully give back to those living in poverty in that generation, effectively breaking the cycle of poverty on a smaller scale, but effecting a larger scale shift in society as a whole.

That's why I would argue that broadening our laws with regard to abortion as a solution to any social issue just isn't the answer. At best it's only an immediate band-aid on a gaping wound, which never comes anywhere near addressing the underlying causes it's proponents claim it addresses (abortion only addresses the symptoms, it has never, and could never, address the cause).

Heh, speaking of band-aids, I was reminded recently of one of the effects of social mobility is that it gives.people the power to speak for themselves (round these parts those people would more affectionately be referred to as 'the facebook huns', for being ill-educated, etc) -

Is Band Aid's Do They Know It's Christmas? a problematic song?

There are some classic quotes in there which belie the propaganda perpetuated in the song by people who would want us to feel guilty for being as fortunate as we are, but when it was pointed out to him that his lyrics were a misleading representation of life in Africa, Bob Geldof, who had received numerous accolades for his efforts, had this to say on the matter -

Geldof previously replied to critics of the lyrics, telling them to f**k off. He told the Telegraph in 2014: "Please. It's a pop song. Relax."

Not quite the altruist he makes himself out to be then, rather like the upwardly mobile types who post selfies on their social media wearing the latest trendy repeal apparel and imagining what rebels they are for calling Leo a tosser -

Minister defends Varadkar after US band call him 'tosser' for not posing in front of repeal flag

I can think of many reasons to claim Leo is a tosser of the highest order (not least for his social welfare snitching scheme campaign), but on that occasion at least, it wasn't Leo who behaved like a complete tosser. It was the chap who let his ideology cloud his judgement.

Da Boss

One observation I’ve made reading all the pro choice posts is that despite all the reasons we, the pro life side, have given as to why The eighth amendment should be retained. They have yet to acknowledge a single genuine argument.for the retention of the eight amendment. They have yet to make any reference to the unborn child. I find the arrogance from the pro choice side baffling, as it appears to them their superior to us and were just uneducated fools.

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote:

I'm really the wrong person to ask that question as I've taken my chances with worse odds regarding my medical treatment and what I was and wasn't prepared to live with. You wouldn't believe the amount of bureaucracy and being bounced around between consultants and hospitals because nobody wanted to risk an almost certain death on their conscience for what to them should normally be a standard procedure that as one consultant put it "if you need blood, I'm giving you blood". I simply told them "no, you won't!", and made it perfectly clear that that was something I wasn't prepared to live with, and would rather die than live with it. I didn't expect them to understand, and many of them didn't, and 'medicalsplained' ( ) to me the likely outcome of my decision as though I had never given it any thought before.

That's very interesting Jack, you feel you've the right to make those kind of decisions but you don't feel a woman should be afforded the same rights.

Bit of a contradiction No?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But it doesn't. What has actually happened is medical staff are so unclear about the law they wait until the balance of probability means the women is over 50% likely to die - would you like those odds if it was your life on the line?

I'm really the wrong person to ask that question as I've taken my chances with worse odds regarding my medical treatment and what I was and wasn't prepared to live with. ...

that as one consultant put it "if you need blood, I'm giving you blood". I simply told them "no, you won't!", and made it perfectly clear that that was something I wasn't prepared to live with, and would rather die than live with it. I didn't expect them to understand, and many of them didn't, and 'medicalsplained' (:pac:) to me the likely outcome of my decision as though I had never given it any thought before.

I took the risk, knowing the consequences, and I got lucky. I don't think the medical professionals were wrong, and I don't think I was right, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else as it was entirely a decision based upon illogical, irrational, emotive nonsense as you put it.

I can understand that medical professionals would be more interested in covering their own arse from a legal perspective, but that's a risk that they take, and it's a risk they would still take regardless of the existence of the 8th amendment because we live in an increasingly litigious society, where medical professionals are increasingly being held accountable for their actions, and I don't know about you, but I for one see that as a good thing... not the fact that we live in an increasingly litigious society, but the fact that more and more medical professionals are held accountable for their actions.

But you had that choice. You weren't informed that this is being done despite the fact that a lower risk procedure exists.

It's really strange that you appear to think that an anecdote in which you made a choice like that can help justify the removal of the same choice from someone else.

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

again this is another false allegation.

nobody is being punished, this isn't about punishing. it's about helping people to really think about their options rather then seeing abortion as the solution, and upholding the unborn's right to live. so another failed allegation from your good self. try again

So this

end of the road wrote: »

which in turn makes the killing of the unborn bar extreme circumstances more difficult and expensive, in turn deterring some from making the trip, meaning some lives are saved. so in terms of abortion on demand it does work to an extent.

That's respect to you? Not giving a flying fcuk about the woman in this instance? That's not disrespect? Or punishment? Then I don't know what is

end of the road

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

You have respect for them up until the point they become pregnant with an unwanted child. Then all respect goes out the window

again this is another false allegation.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

either a. they should be burdened with a child they don't want and, even if they are giving the child up for adoption, be burdened with carrying it for 9 months and go through the emotional and traumatic experience of childbirth or b. be punished financially, mentally and emotionally by being made to travel to have an abortion. You literally said it should be expensive and difficult for them to do so. That isn't respectful at all.

nobody is being punished, this isn't about punishing. it's about helping people to really think about their options rather then seeing abortion as the solution, and upholding the unborn's right to live. so another failed allegation from your good self. try again

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

what a horrible thing to say. shame on you. by all means disagree with my view but there is no need to be making up horrible allegations about me.
i do not under any circumstances hate women. i have the upmost respect for them. i just disagree with abortion on demand and i believe that by making the procurement of abortion difficult that some women will consider not having an abortion. that is all. if it wasn't for abortion on demand i would gladly vote repeal as i want the other issues it causes gone. but because of the high likely hood of abortion on demand i will be unable to vote yes and i'm unhappy about that. i cannot vote for something that will lead to something i fundamentally disagree with.

You have respect for them up until the point they become pregnant with an unwanted child. Then all respect goes out the window and either a. they should be burdened with a child they don't want and, even if they are giving the child up for adoption, be burdened with carrying it for 9 months and go through the emotional and traumatic experience of childbirth or b. be punished financially, mentally and emotionally by being made to travel to have an abortion. You literally said it should be expensive and difficult for them to do so. That isn't respectful at all.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. The State is saying after birth is when it acknowledges the child as a separate person exists.
It is immaterial where the child was born or at what state of gestation. From the moment of birth it exists as a legal entity and becomes entitled to benefits.

All of this brandishing about terms like child in the womb is emotive nonsense - particularly when it is a embryonic clump of cells.

Right, and if you knew that much, I don't understand why you would ask the question in the first place.

Yeah, thanks for mansplaining what unborn means - I was getting it confused with undead.

Now, let me return the favour by womansplaining that a woman is an adult female not a female of any age. The framers of this ridiculous piece of bunkum failed to acknowledge that there are non-adult females in this country who through no fault of their own become pregnant. There are 10 year old girls capable of becoming pregnant - they are not 'women' - they are children. Children this hideous clause would force to become mothers.

I think the law acknowledges perfectly well that the term woman refers to a female of any age, and therefore fully acknowledges the possibility of 10 year old females becoming pregnant. The important bit there is the recognition of the female sex, regardless of their age.

No mansplaining intended, no womansplaining required.

But it doesn't. What has actually happened is medical staff are so unclear about the law they wait until the balance of probability means the women is over 50% likely to die - would you like those odds if it was your life on the line?

I'm really the wrong person to ask that question as I've taken my chances with worse odds regarding my medical treatment and what I was and wasn't prepared to live with. You wouldn't believe the amount of bureaucracy and being bounced around between consultants and hospitals because nobody wanted to risk an almost certain death on their conscience for what to them should normally be a standard procedure that as one consultant put it "if you need blood, I'm giving you blood". I simply told them "no, you won't!", and made it perfectly clear that that was something I wasn't prepared to live with, and would rather die than live with it. I didn't expect them to understand, and many of them didn't, and 'medicalsplained' (:pac:) to me the likely outcome of my decision as though I had never given it any thought before.

I took the risk, knowing the consequences, and I got lucky. I don't think the medical professionals were wrong, and I don't think I was right, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else as it was entirely a decision based upon illogical, irrational, emotive nonsense as you put it.

I can understand that medical professionals would be more interested in covering their own arse from a legal perspective, but that's a risk that they take, and it's a risk they would still take regardless of the existence of the 8th amendment because we live in an increasingly litigious society, where medical professionals are increasingly being held accountable for their actions, and I don't know about you, but I for one see that as a good thing... not the fact that we live in an increasingly litigious society, but the fact that more and more medical professionals are held accountable for their actions.

kylith

Da Boss wrote: »

This is all personal to me as I was informed I would have me aborted should the law have allowed. Therefore the eight amendment saved my life, the life I currently enjoy that only for the eighth I wouldn’t never have seen. Surely you see where I’m coming from and why the eighth is so important to me

It was a terrible thing to tell you that, but being logical here; if your mother had had a termination you'd never have known anything about it. While it would have happened to the foetus that became you, there was no 'you' to know about it. You would have felt no fear, no pain, no discomfort of all. I know me saying this is harsh because you can't help but think about it as it happening to you personally, as you are now.

Let me tell you another story: had my friend's mother not had access to abortion services in the UK in the 70s she would not have been able to attend college, she would not then have met my friend's father in college and have subsequently gotten a good job when she graduated, my friend and his siblings and their children would never have been born. One abortion in the 70s saved a woman and that child from a life of disaffection and poverty and brought 5 other wonderful people into the world who would not exist otherwise.

end of the road

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

WOW. Wow. Your hatred of women really coming out now EOTR. So, forcing women to have babies is good because reasons and there should be a massive financial expense and difficulty for women who travel for one, because fcuk those women.

what a horrible thing to say. shame on you. by all means disagree with my view but there is no need to be making up horrible allegations about me.
i do not under any circumstances hate women. i have the upmost respect for them. i just disagree with abortion on demand and i believe that by making the procurement of abortion difficult that some women will consider not having an abortion. that is all. if it wasn't for abortion on demand i would gladly vote repeal as i want the other issues it causes gone. but because of the high likely hood of abortion on demand i will be unable to vote yes and i'm unhappy about that. i cannot vote for something that will lead to something i fundamentally disagree with.

end of the road

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What about the lives of women and girls it has cost?
Dodgy on-line pills.
Botched DIY abortions.
Suicide.

Do they not count? Or are they just collateral damage?

they do count, and their deaths are very sad. but for me i don't think those issues are enough for abortion on demand to be legal. strict customs controls would make the purchasing of dodgy pills difficult and a good mental health system would be able to help people at risk of mental health issues.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's not saving lives - it's punishing the poor. You seem to feel it's acceptable that those who can afford it can travel for terminations but the less well off must suffer the consequences.

i don't agree with anyone traveling to procure an abortion but if some are stopped with the current system then i believe that is the best option. the 8th is saving some lives. yes it causes other problems and it is unfortunate that i can't vote yes to repeal as much as i would like to, but i cannot and will not support abortion being availible on demand in ireland.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I notice you are still talking about 'extreme' circumstances while failing to ask exactly how to define them.

i gave some examples of what i believe to be extreme circumstances.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you want to know how I define it? - being pregnant when you really really don't want to be. That's pretty ucking extreme mentally, physically, and emotionally.

i don't agree simply being pregnant when you don't want to be is an extreme situation requiring abortion. i have no doubt it is draining mentally physically and emotionally and i sympathise but i don't believe it's grounds for abortion. abortion is not a solution to non-extreme problems.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because one of the conditions for qualifying for child benefit is that the child is actually born -

You need to apply for Child Benefit within 12 months of:
The birth of your baby or
The month the child became a member of your family or
The month the family came to live in Ireland.

The State is simply saying those are the criteria under which you can apply for child benefit.

No. The State is saying after birth is when it acknowledges the child as a separate person exists.
It is immaterial where the child was born or at what state of gestation. From the moment of birth it exists as a legal entity and becomes entitled to benefits.

All of this brandishing about terms like child in the womb is emotive nonsense - particularly when it is a embryonic clump of cells.

The whole "alive" criteria is a red herring, because it isn't a consideration in Irish law where the term "the unborn", is defined as -

“unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman;

“woman” means a female person of any age.

Yeah, thanks for mansplaining what unborn means - I was getting it confused with undead.

Now, let me return the favour by womansplaining that a woman is an adult female not a female of any age. The framers of this ridiculous piece of bunkum failed to acknowledge that there are non-adult females in this country who through no fault of their own become pregnant. There are 10 year old girls capable of becoming pregnant - they are not 'women' - they are children. Children this hideous clause would force to become mothers.

which means that in cases where it simply isn't practical to view the right to life of the unborn and the right to life of the woman as equal, the woman's right to life takes precedence over the right to life of the unborn, as one would logically expect, in theory at least.

But it doesn't. What has actually happened is medical staff are so unclear about the law they wait until the balance of probability means the women is over 50% likely to die - would you like those odds if it was your life on the line?

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

which in turn makes the killing of the unborn bar extreme circumstances more difficult and expensive, in turn deterring some from making the trip, meaning some lives are saved. so in terms of abortion on demand it does work to an extent.

WOW. Wow. Your hatred of women really coming out now EOTR. So, forcing women to have babies is good because reasons and there should be a massive financial expense and difficulty for women who travel for one, because fcuk those women.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Write to your TD and ask why child benefit isn't paid for a fetus.
Is the State saying they aren't human or is the State saying they are not a child?

Why when a child is eventually born isn't child benefit backed dated to the time of conception?

Because one of the conditions for qualifying for child benefit is that the child is actually born -

You need to apply for Child Benefit within 12 months of:
The birth of your baby or
The month the child became a member of your family or
The month the family came to live in Ireland.

The State is simply saying those are the criteria under which you can apply for child benefit.

Is something that cannot possibly survive without a 'host' truly alive or does it merely exist with the potential to eventually be alive?

The whole "alive" criteria is a red herring, because it isn't a consideration in Irish law where the term "the unborn", is defined as -

“unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman;

“woman” means a female person of any age.

captbarnacles wrote: »

To add to the above: why does he State not think aborting a fetus is murder?

The State treats them as two different things because they are two different things. Why would the State regard abortion as murder? Some people may believe that abortion is murder, but legally speaking they would be incorrect, and that's important because it is only in a legal context that human rights are recognised either. Ireland is one of only three countries in Europe which acknowledges the legal right to life of the unborn, and introduced the 8th amendment to vindicate and protect that right as far as was practical, which means that in cases where it simply isn't practical to view the right to life of the unborn and the right to life of the woman as equal, the woman's right to life takes precedence over the right to life of the unborn, as one would logically expect, in theory at least.

Bannasidhe

end of the road wrote: »

which in turn makes the killing of the unborn bar extreme circumstances more difficult and expensive, in turn deterring some from making the trip, meaning some lives are saved. so in terms of abortion on demand it does work to an extent.

What about the lives of women and girls it has cost?
Dodgy on-line pills.
Botched DIY abortions.
Suicide.

Do they not count? Or are they just collateral damage?

It's not saving lives - it's punishing the poor. You seem to feel it's acceptable that those who can afford it can travel for terminations but the less well off must suffer the consequences.

I notice you are still talking about 'extreme' circumstances while failing to address exactly how to define them.

Do you want to know how I define it? - being pregnant when you really really don't want to be. That's pretty ucking extreme mentally, physically, and emotionally.

end of the road

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It doesn't you know. It simply exports the problem.

which in turn makes the killing of the unborn bar extreme circumstances more difficult and expensive, in turn deterring some from making the trip, meaning some lives are saved. so in terms of abortion on demand it does work to an extent.

Bannasidhe

applehunter wrote: »

I won't be doing that. I will let my 2 local TDs know what I thought of their votes at the Oireachtas hearings though.

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Government like paperwork. Birth Certs. can be photocopied.

This logic defies our humanity.

Yeah - none of that actually answered the question of what exactly defines when a fetus becomes a child now does it?
Is a embryo with no brain function a child?
Human - yes. A child. No.

Children are currently homeless.
Children are lying on hospital trolleys.
Children are living in agony waiting for medical procedures.
Where are their Constitutional rights to be cherished?
Are you going to write to your two TDs and give them you option of that?

The Constitution says 'unborn' not child.
The State does not recognise the unborn as a 'child'.
The State via the HSE facilitates ending pregnancies.

It would be a simple matter to count back from DOB - but they don't. Why? Because the Irish State using the moment of birth as the defining point.
Not conception.

All the 8th Amendment is is a hypocritical and cynical piece of BS that gives lip service to the punish the slags (ie any woman who had sex for pleasure) brigade who fear allowing women control over their own bodies.

The 8th will be repealed - hopefully soon so my granddaughter isn't forced to have these ridiculous discussions in the future.

end of the road

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But if people didn't engage in certain lifestyle choices these procedures would not be necessary. Do smokers not choose to risk lung cancer by indulging in an activity they know is dangerous? Why should the State provide resources to treat a self-inflicted condition?

nobody chooses to get cancer. yes they may take part in an activity that has a chance of increasing it but they don't set out to deliberately get cancer. someone who sets out to have an abortion is deliberately setting out to kill the unborn. so while the cancer may be caused by a self-inflicted activity it will definitely kill someone if not treated, and the state has a duty to save life.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who gets to decide what is an extreme circumstance? How is that defined in law?

usually the extreme circumstances are where the mother's life is in danger or there is a serious health risk, or the baby cannot be caried to term. the legislators would be writing the legislation.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are only physical medical circumstances allowed? Does the health of the woman factor? Are possible medical consequences allowed or must it be definite? What if the impact on the woman's health isn't dangerous at 9 weeks but as gestation continues the effects would grow more life threatening and by 22 weeks could be fatal? Would she have to wait and see?

it will depend on what the circumstances are but i'd reccan what i have suggested above should cover the situations where abortion would be necessary including most of your above suggestions where there would be serious consiquences.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is mental health taken into consideration? History of severe postpartum depression leading to suicide attempts - should a form of Russian roulette be played with the woman's life?

we have a system to deal with the mental health issues, so no . it needs improving vastly so that it can properly help people in that situation. abortion isn't needed for that IMO.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is homelessness an extreme circumstance?

Rape?

Poverty?

no IMO

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you really think women just go 'hoo hum... up the duff... ooopsie... better book an abortion before the weekend so I can paaaarty'.

no i don't think that happens. but that doesn't mean that their decisian is necessary.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The vast vast majority of Women do consider the other options and then make an informed adult decision.

abortion is the wrong decisian bar extreme circumstances.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But the State disagrees and pays so some men who cannot get an erection 'naturally' are helped...

again i believe it shouldn't pay for that.

applehunter

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Write to your TD and ask why child benefit isn't paid for a fetus.

I won't be doing that. I will let my 2 local TDs know what I thought of their votes at the Oireachtas hearings though.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is the State saying they aren't human or is the State saying they are not a child?

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why when a child is eventually born isn't child benefit backed dated to the time of conception?

Government like paperwork. Birth Certs. can be photocopied.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is something that cannot possibly survive without a 'host' truly alive or does it merely exist with the potential to eventually be alive?

This logic defies our humanity.

captbarnacles

To add to the above: why does he State not think aborting a fetus is murder?

Bannasidhe

applehunter wrote: »

It's a trick question.

I gave a flippant answer.

The answer is that it protects the life of the unborn in Ireland. That is a positive for me.

It doesn't you know. It simply exports the problem.

Bannasidhe

applehunter wrote: »

What is the difference between referring to the life as "not a child" and "potential life"?

It's dehumanising language.

Write to your TD and ask why child benefit isn't paid for a fetus.
Is the State saying they aren't human or is the State saying they are not a child?

Why when a child is eventually born isn't child benefit backed dated to the time of conception?

Is something that cannot possibly survive without a 'host' truly alive or does it merely exist with the potential to eventually be alive?

applehunter

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's a very good question, you just gave a really poor answer. Which is probably why you're saying it's a stupid question.

It's a trick question.

I gave a flippant answer.

The answer is that it protects the life of the unborn in Ireland. That is a positive for me.

applehunter

January wrote: »

Not at all. I was fully aware I was aborting a potential life as I'm sure others who have abortions are well aware too. My need to prioritise the 4 children I already had and myself was greater than my need to bring another child into this world.

What is the difference between referring to the life as "not a child" and "potential life"?

It's dehumanising language.

Bannasidhe

end of the road wrote: »

no as the medical procedures they would require would be necessary. outside extreme circumstances i believe the killing of the unborn to be unnecessary so it shouldn't be provided in the state.

But if people didn't engage in certain lifestyle choices these procedures would not be necessary. Do smokers not choose to risk lung cancer by indulging in an activity they know is dangerous? Why should the State provide resources to treat a self-inflicted condition?

Who gets to decide what is an extreme circumstance? How is that defined in law?

Are only physical medical circumstances allowed? Does the health of the woman factor? Are possible medical consequences allowed or must it be definite? What if the impact on the woman's health isn't dangerous at 9 weeks but as gestation continues the effects would grow more life threatening and by 22 weeks could be fatal? Would she have to wait and see?

Is mental health taken into consideration? History of severe postpartum depression leading to suicide attempts - should a form of Russian roulette be played with the woman's life?

Is homelessness an extreme circumstance?

Rape?

Poverty?

i believe so yes . the state shoudld not provide abortion bar extreme circumstances, however after care maybe necessary and if not provided could potentially be serious, so yes the state should provide it. essentially i want to make it difficult for people to procure abortions and make them think about other options.

Do you really think women just go 'hoo hum... up the duff... ooopsie... better book an abortion before the weekend so I can paaaarty'.

The vast vast majority of Women do consider the other options and then make an informed adult decision.

Who gets to decide which option is 'best' for a minor?

it's not IMO.

But the State disagrees and pays so some men who cannot get an erection 'naturally' are helped... which could lead to a woman becoming pregnant when she doesn't want to be... but then that woman can't get the State to pay for her not to be pregnant...

It's mad Ted.

because that is a life saving procedure. just like abortion in extreme circumstances would be.

But.... but... lifestyle.

it doesn't have to be though.

It does if it comes down to a situation where the consequences of some -
frankly dangerous -lifestyle choices are paid for by the State but others are not. Who decides???

yes i believe it should be in the constitution. yes i believe people should be prosecuted for a crime should they starve someone to death. there should be a procedure in place where if someone is brain dead that they are able to be given an injection that would end their suffering quickly

But what if the person woke up before starving to death?? Just like we keep hearing about how a fetus with fatal foetal abnormalities can live for a while after birth so aborting them should remain illegal.

A lethal injection would make that impossible.

NuMarvel

applehunter wrote: »

I agree its a stupid question.

It's a very good question, you just gave a really poor answer. Which is probably why you're saying it's a stupid question.

applehunter

NuMarvel wrote: »

A claim by an anonymous poster on an internet forum about what a third party supposedly told him can not be taken as evidence that the 8th works. Or of anything else for that matter.

I agree its a stupid question.

eviltwin

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Same could be said about any poster or moderator in this thread.

Most of the personal stories here have been posted in some form or another before, going back years in some cases. I don't think it's a case of making stuff up to suit an agenda.

The_Valeyard

NuMarvel wrote: »

A claim by an anonymous poster on an internet forum about what a third party supposedly told him can not be taken as evidence that the 8th works. Or of anything else for that matter.

Same could be said about any poster or moderator in this thread.