The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

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 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.

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

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 wrote: »

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.

Considering the grammar and spelling mistakes in your posts you can forgive us for thinking so, however this is not school despite the childish factless arguments from your side!

Also, you have been provided with medical and scientific facts, you choose not to believe them and in several instances ignore them in favour of opinions and feelings so again forgive us for thinking so.

What I find hypocritical is that you and your ilk will ignore science and medical facts when it’s suits your agenda but when you’re gravely ill you would be happy to take the word of a medical practitioner if it meant making YOU feel better or saving YOUR life!!

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

I'm not ignoring your point volchista, I'm saying that the only way the two different circumstances could be relatable is if the decisions I made for myself also affected the another human life which was immediately dependent upon my continued survival.

I would suggest that under those conditions, I would not have the ability to withdraw consent to a procedure which would have an immediate effect on another human life which was immediately dependent upon my survival, in Ireland at least.

You could of course make the same decision I did in the same circumstances I did, if you weren't pregnant, and that's the important distinction.

volchitsa wrote: »

If we actually followed through on this principle, you'd have a point, but there are so many instances in which this other human life gets little or no consideration (destruction of IVF embryos being one obvious example) that its application in order to justify reducing the pregnant woman's rights is more the exception than the rule.

Wasn't it determined though in that case that the frozen embryos did not meet the conditions for the protection of life of the unborn on the basis that the term only applies to embryos which have implanted in the womb?

I don't think there's any attempt to reduce a woman's human rights on the basis that she is pregnant, but rather it's an attempt to weigh up the right to life of both the unborn and the pregnant woman in question and find a balance between the two competing rights. That's why pregnancy is referred to as a unique situation in the context of human rights, with regard to the right to life. Interesting article on it here -


Article 2: Right to Life

Which suggests that the motivation is more about making some aspirational statement than about genuinely exercising rights for the unborn.

Well yes, all human rights are completely aspirational, but they can also be about genuinely exercising rights for both those who are born, and those who are unborn, and with Ireland granted a broad margin of appreciation with regard to our laws on abortion, I can still see legislating for it even if the 8th amendment were repealed, could potentially take up to another 20 years given the way TD's have generally tended to vote on any members bills relating to abortion, and used every stalling tactic in the book (including the Citizens Assembly when we already had the Law Reform Commission) to avoid having to legislate for broadening our abortion laws in this country.

That's why I personally would recommend to any woman seeking an abortion that they travel abroad, because even what she may assume will be the outcome once she is granted a termination of her pregnancy, may not be the outcome she expected.

Da Boss wrote: »

I would do all I could within reason. Obviously I couldn’t be forceful about it

This is wrong. We had a referendum on this subject back when the 8th made travel for abortion illegal, and 37.6% of the electorate were in favour of keeping it illegal.

If those 37.6% of the electorate had gotten their way, you would have the full force of the State behind the right to life of the unborn.

But as with all their other defeats, the forces of 1950s Catholicism never try to reverse progress. Just like with divorce or SSM, I have never met one of these 37.6% since that referendum, and pro-lifers all pretend they think that it would be mad to roll it back.

And the same will happen when the 8th is finally gone. No-one will miss it.

Da Boss wrote: »

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.

Many, many intelligent points have been made to you, and you have ignored them.

I'm still waiting on what you recommend the consequences be for the man who gets the woman pregnant. In your opinion, the woman needs to suffer the repercussions if contraception fails.
So what should happen to the man, what kind of life limiting state should we force on him for 9 months where he cannot drink, smoke or fly, and must eat a restricted diet? He won't be able to work towards the end, either.
The end of the 9 months must also be very painful, possibly involving surgery. And then after that we need to give him something he needs to be responsible for, for another 18 years minimum, that will eat into a lot of his personal time and income and will need his constant attention and care.

What are your recommendations for the consequences for him? Because all you seem to be banging on about is how the woman should suffer. She can't get pregnant on her own.

bubblypop wrote: »

I posted this story before on a different thread I think, but I will post again,just in case people don't understand how the 8th amendment can affect women's health.

A few years ago I had an ectopic pregnancy. I was approx 7 weeks pregnant, so most definitely a very small bunch of cells.
In the hospital I was not informed that there were any options available in my treatment. I had to undergo emergency surgery, where they removed the embryo.
Afterwards I spoke with a midwife, who informed me that ectopic pregnancy can be dealt with by way of a pill.
This was not an option for me however because the 8th amendment made it illegal for them to 'kill' the embryo. They had to operate & the loss Of The embryo was as a consequence of operating.

So, basically instead of giving me a pill, with little side affects I had to go under anaesthetic and undergo an operation which was entirely unnecessary.

if it happened in any other country we here would believe them to be backward.

That is absolutely awful. I can't believe you were put through that when there was a far less invasive option available.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Indeed and so we get doctors tying themselves in knots trying to work out the legal practicality of whether to abort in order to save the womans life. So effectively what happens in a number of cases is that the 8th puts womens lives in danger.

Joey if you wanted to view the issue in those terms, then women should be discouraged from ever getting pregnant in the first place as they are immediately putting their lives in danger. In fact, women should just wrap themselves in linen and never leave their abode as they are immediately putting themselves in danger.

I would fully expect any woman would tell me to naff off if I suggested such measures in an attempt to claim they could be putting themselves in danger otherwise.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Joey if you wanted to view the issue in those terms, then women should be discouraged from ever getting pregnant in the first place as they are immediately putting their lives in danger. In fact, women should just wrap themselves in linen and never leave their abode as they are immediately putting themselves in danger.

I would fully expect any woman would tell me to naff off if I suggested such measures in an attempt to claim they could be putting themselves in danger otherwise.

It's not about how I view it. It is the reality that because doctors have to wait until a womans life is more than 50% in danger until they can give her a life saving abortion. It is reality. The 8th puts womens lives in danger.