The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

....... · 11-01-2018 01:50PM

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-01-2018 02:01PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You could have the most comprehensive sex ed you like in schools, and it won't make one iota of a difference outside of the school classroom.

That is false.

The data also shows that—contrary to some opinions—teaching comprehensive sex education does not increase the rate that teenagers engage in sexual activity. In fact, teaching comprehensive sex education may actually decrease it.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/a-look-behind-the-declining-abortion-rate.html

A reduction of unwanted pregnancies has been accomplished through successful strategies for the prevention of teenage pregnancy (including sex education, open discussions on sexuality in mass media, educational campaigns and low barrier services)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545

Evaluations of comprehensive sex education programs show that these programs can help youth delay onset of sexual activity, reduce the frequency of sexual activity, reduce number of sexual partners, and increase condom and contraceptive use. Importantly, the evidence shows youth who receive comprehensive sex education are NOT more likely to become sexually active, increase sexual activity, or experience negative sexual health outcomes. Effective programs exist for youth from a variety of racial, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds.1,2,3,4,5

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/1487

Researchers studied the National Survey of Family Growth to determine the impact of sexuality education on youth sexual risk-taking for young people ages 15-19, and found that teens who received comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to experience pregnancy than those who received abstinence-only education.6

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/1487

Guttmacher reported that, although definitive studies are not available, some studies have shown that comprehensive sex education classes work better than abstinence-only classes.

https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures/abortion-sex-education/2015/04/23/id/640405/

"The quality and quantity of evaluation research have improved dramatically over the last decade, and there is now clear evidence that comprehensive sex education programs can change the behaviors that put young people at risk of pregnancy,"

Gutmacher

After accounting for other factors, the national data show that the incidence of teenage pregnancies and births remain positively correlated with the degree of abstinence education across states: The more strongly abstinence is emphasized in state laws and policies, the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rate. States that taught comprehensive sex and/or HIV education and covered abstinence along with contraception and condom use (level 1 sex education; also referred to as “abstinence-plus” [26], tended to have the lowest teen pregnancy rates,

Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024658&utm_source=AOL&utm_medium=readMore&utm_campaign=partner

The resident population of the western portion of a South Carolina county has undergone a public health information and education intervention since October 1982. The purpose of the intervention has been to reduce the occurrence of unintended pregnancies among unmarried adolescents. Intervention messages are targeted at parents, teachers, ministers and representatives of churches, community leaders, and children enrolled in the public school system. The messages emphasize development of decision-making and communication skills, self-esteem enhancement, and understanding human reproductive anatomy, physiology, and contraception. The estimated rate of pregnancy ([live births plus fetal deaths plus induced abortions] per 1000 female population) for females aged 14 to 17 years in the county's western portion has declined remarkably since the intervention began, and the changes are statistically significant when compared with three sociodemographically similar counties and also with the eastern portion of the county.

Reducing Adolescent Pregnancy Through School and Community-Based Education
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/366769?redirect=true

This paper reviews 83 studies that measure the impact of curriculum-based sex and HIV education programs on sexual behavior and mediating factors among youth under 25 years anywhere in the world. Two thirds of the programs significantly improved one or more sexual behaviors. The evidence is strong that programs do not hasten or increase sexual behavior but, instead, some programs delay or decrease sexual behaviors or increase condom or contraceptive use.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X0600601X

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If the issue were truly influenced by what you consider a lack of adequate sex education, then we would expect the number of crisis pregnancies to be much higher than it actually is.

Who is "we"? I do not know anyone who expects that. Nor have you offered here a single reason why we would or should expect that. You just asserted it and left it hanging there. Substantiate this expectation for me please.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Consider for example a number of girls whom you would have went to school with, all received the same quality sex education (on the assumption that their parents agreed to allow their children to participate). Some of those girls will have experienced crisis pregnancies, and some of them won't, therefore it's reasonable to assume another external factor influences behaviour than just sex education or indeed lack thereof.

What ARE you talking about here? You think that because ALL of them did not have crisis pregnancies that therefore the points people are making here about sexual education are somehow invalidated or even diluted? What nonsense is this from you? That is not how it works even remotely in the real world. The education effects the RATES of crisis pregnancies over a population. That individuals, having received such education, still experience crisis pregnancies (while others do not) does not invalidate that one bit.

Also no one is saying that any of this is "Just sex education". You just made that part up entirely. Just like you do later in this same post when saying "wasn't solely as a result of the increased availability of contraception".

There is of course a number of factors in play and interplay. Addressing one is NEVER going to solve the problem. We need a holistic (despite the bad press that word gets these days) approach to the issue.

But that sex education is a part of it, and has a massive effect in the world (rather than not an "iota" of "difference outside of the school classroom") seems clear in the world of people making studies and research rather than the world of individuals on forums making baseless assertions.

One eyed Jack · 11-01-2018 02:24PM

....... wrote: »

Whats warped?

The assertion that just because I made the point about one, must mean that I would actually prefer the complete opposite of that. That's warped, and it doesn't follow from what I said at all.

One eyed Jack · 11-01-2018 02:32PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is false.

None of the links you posted actually contradict what I said which was in direct reply to kylith's assertion about better sex education in schools.

There is of course a number of factors in play and interplay. Addressing one is NEVER going to solve the problem. We need a holistic (despite the bad press that word gets these days) approach to the issue.

But that sex education is a part of it, and has a massive effect in the world (rather than not an "iota" of "difference outside of the school classroom") seems clear in the world of people making studies and research rather than the world of individuals on forums making baseless assertions.

That's pretty much what I said?

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-01-2018 02:34PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

None of the links you posted actually contradict what I said

You said:

"You could have the most comprehensive sex ed you like in schools, and it won't make one iota of a difference outside of the school classroom. "

and I showed many links showing that the most comprehensive sex ed in schools has a LOT of effect and makes a LOT of difference outside the classroom.

And you think that does not contradict what you said???

It is the exact opposite of what you said. It could not possibly be MORE of a contradiction of the unsubstantiated assertion you just offered here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's pretty much what I said?

No, you said that comprehensive sex ed in schools does not have an iota of effect outside the classroom. That was an egregiously unsubstantiated and false statement you made. Feel free to retract it.

One eyed Jack · 11-01-2018 02:51PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You said:

"You could have the most comprehensive sex ed you like in schools, and it won't make one iota of a difference outside of the school classroom. "

and I showed many links showing that the most comprehensive sex ed in schools has a LOT of effect and makes a LOT of difference outside the classroom.

And you think that does not contradict what you said??? It is the exact opposite of what you said. It could not possibly be MORE of a contradiction of the unsubstantiated assertion you just offered here.

No, you said that comprehensive sex ed in schools does not have an iota of effect outside the classroom. That was an egregiously unsubstantiated and false statement you made. Feel free to retract it.

I won't retract it because the links you posted suggested that there was more to any of the programmes than just what could be covered in a 40 minute sex ed class in the school environment. They appear to have taken as you said a more holistic approach to the issue than just simply... well, blasting children with information :pac:

One only has to look at more developed societies as opposed to developing societies to see that numerous factors contribute to a reduction in underage sex and all the implications of it, and that applies to both boys and girls alike, as opposed to some sex education programmes I've seen solely targeted at making girls responsible for their sexual health. The ideal is of course prevention rather than cure.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-01-2018 02:53PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I won't retract it because the links you posted suggested that there was more to any of the programmes than just what could be covered in a 40 minute sex ed class in the school environment.

Of course there is more to it. I said that already. But the fact is that claiming a comprehensive sex education will have no effect outside the classroom, as you did, is demonstrably a false statement.

That other things ALSO have an effect, and work in interplay with such education, does not change the falsehood of your statement. No matter how desperately you want it to.

One eyed Jack · 11-01-2018 03:02PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Of course there is more to it. I said that already. But the fact is that claiming a comprehensive sex education will have no effect outside the classroom, as you did, is demonstrably a false statement.

That other things ALSO have an effect, and work in interplay with such education, does not change the falsehood of your statement. No matter how desperately you want it to.

When I spoke of comprehensive sex education in the classroom, I was thinking of things that could be taught to children in that setting. That's what I meant by saying comprehensive in that context. A comprehensive sex education programme itself is something else entirely different from just what could be taught in a classroom setting in any given 40 minute period.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-01-2018 03:07PM

Nope it really does not. You are just word dancing out of your falsehood by pretending you have a different definition of "comprehensive sex education" than everyone else does.

You claimed such an education has no effect outside the classroom. It has an effect outside the class room, measurable in rates of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

What part of that sexual education do you feel can (or has) NOT be offered in the context of a school classroom "setting"?

One eyed Jack · 11-01-2018 03:11PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope it really does not.

Oh whatever dude, this is why most of the time I simply can't be arsed entertaining you, you're not here to add anything substantial to the discussion, you're just here to nit-pick. I've been civil, now I just can't be arsed. Have it your way.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-01-2018 03:13PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh whatever dude, this is why most of the time I simply can't be arsed entertaining you, you're not here to add anything substantial to the discussion, you're just here to nit-pick. I've been civil, now I just can't be arsed. Have it your way.

So pointing out a blatantly false statement is blatantly false is "nitpicking" now is it? And something I uniquely do compared to others you talk with, as if it is not happening all over the forum all the time by pretty much every user engaged in ANY debate?

Pull the other one.

The simple fact is that sexual education, in the context of the classroom setting, has a demonstrable effect on pregnancy and abortion rates outside the class room.

YOU claimed that such an education in the setting of the classroom will not have an "iota" of effect outside the classroom.

That is not picking. That is correcting an egregiously and ENTIRELY false statement. Dude.

....... · 11-01-2018 03:21PM

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack · 11-01-2018 03:27PM

....... wrote: »

No one said anything about your preference. Stop moving the goal posts again.

Indeed you offered an unsubstantiated suggestion about something that you think (some) pro choice clinics do and it was countered with substantiated evidence of what (some) pro life clinics actually do.

You only felt the information offered was warped when the substantiated shoe was on the other foot.

I think you need to go back and read Bannsidhe's post. It was directly suggested that I would prefer the opposite. Why that is a reasonable assumption in anyone's mind is a question known only to them, and certainly not one I would consider worth entertaining. If someone thinks like that, they're going to think like that regardless, and it's best IMO simply to let them off rather than entertain them.

....... · 11-01-2018 03:36PM

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel · 11-01-2018 03:39PM

In news related to the 8th:

The Supreme Court has agreed to urgently hear next month the State’s appeal against a significant finding the word “unborn” in the Constitution means a “child” with constitutional protection beyond the 8th amendment.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/supreme-court-to-hear-appeal-on-rights-of-unborn-in-february-1.3351800

This arises from a High Court ruling in 2016 in a deportation case, which made the finding above. The partner of the man at the centre of the case was pregnant at the time, and the judge found that the family rights of the unborn weren't considered when the deportation order was made. I'm guessing that means cases where the deportee has children can be treated differently.

thee glitz · 11-01-2018 03:46PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think you've missed my point. The Constitution might be an appropriate place for an absolute ban on abortion, but it becomes a field of landmines when you start adding qualifications.

There is little point changing the constitution for purely popular purposes. Constitutional provisions must be effective and fit for purpose. Because of the relatively static nature of constitutions, they must be ones that will have relevance over the course of decades. None of these criteria could be applied to a provision about complex clinical and ethical matters.

No matter how popular it might be, changing the 8th to allow "some change" just means more court cases and more referendums. And I don't see that benefiting anyone in the long run.

Do you mean no point in changing the constitution because it would be popular to do so? There would be no need to add anything about complex clinical matters into it.

Amending it to allow for abortion in some cases (as it does already) should be possible. Not that it would be perfect, and that there wouldn't be court cases (will there ever not be?), but it would help in bringing about the availability of abortion in some of those 'hard cases'.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Any "hard cases only" amendment would exclude some women who regard their own case as hard (and that woman could be your wife or daughter someday).

And 99.999+% of the time it won't be, it doesn't matter anyway. I don't think considering you own case as hard to be the basis for writing legislation, and you can't nor shouldn't try to cover ever conceivable situation in doing so.

It would also put us back in the position of putting badly understood language with unknown implications into the Constitution. Unless you can list, for example, every FFA condition and the diagnostic markers sufficient to qualify in legal terms? No? Neither can anyone else.

I don't think that kind of language needs to be in the constitution. We've enough of a way with words here that someone could come up with a suitable amendment quite succinctly. If there was a will (and I feel there is), there would be a way.

ohnonotgmail · 11-01-2018 03:54PM

thee glitz wrote: »

Do you mean no point in changing the constitution because it would be popular to do so? There would be no need to add anything about complex clinical matters into it.

Amending it to allow for abortion in some cases (as it does already) should be possible. Not that it would be perfect, and that there wouldn't be court cases (will there ever not be?), but it would help in bringing about the availability of abortion in some of those 'hard cases'.

And 99.999+% of the time it won't be, it doesn't matter anyway. I don't think considering you own case as hard to be the basis for writing legislation, and you can't nor shouldn't try to cover ever conceivable situation in doing so.

I don't think that kind of language needs to be in the constitution. We've enough of a way with words here that someone could come up with a suitable amendment quite succinctly. If there was a will (and I feel there is), there would be a way.

you mean like they did when writing the 8th amendment?

One eyed Jack · 11-01-2018 03:58PM

....... wrote: »

Oh I see - you mean where you were ASKED if you would prefer the opposite?

Asking =/= suggesting you hold the opinion you know?

Bannsidhe had already assumed I held the opinion she was suggesting. Stop being coy. It wasn't the benign question you're making it out to be at all.

But incidentally, you seem to have no comment to make on the fact that you offered an unsubstantiated story and then a substantiated story was offered to you that was in direction opposition to your tale "from experience".

Interesting that.

It's not all that interesting really. That's abhorrent. That's all there is to it. I don't see how it relates to what I actually posted though at all. In case it wasn't obvious, the point I was making is that when any young girl is seeking advice to continue her pregnancy, the point I would have thought of any independent family planning agency would be to give her advice that would allow her to do just that. The circumstances where a young girl is seeking advice to discontinue her pregnancy, the point I would have thought of any independent family planning agency would be to give her advice that would allow her to do just that.

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer that they are two completely different circumstances that could be handled by the same independent family planning agency.

Of course I think any of those fake abortion clinics or fake family planning agencies are an absolute curse, but I hadn't assumed that actually needed to be said, because that's assuming the worst of somebody, which I generally don't tend to do, and if others do, then that's on them, not me, and I feel no need to legitimise that sort of malicious interpretation.

ohnonotgmail · 11-01-2018 04:00PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Bannsidhe had already assumed I held the opinion she was suggesting. Stop being coy. It wasn't the benign question you're making it out to be at all.

It's not all that interesting really. That's abhorrent. That's all there is to it. I don't see how it relates to what I actually posted though at all. In case it wasn't obvious, the point I was making is that when any young girl is seeking advice to continue her pregnancy, the point I would have thought of any independent family planning agency would be to give her advice that would allow her to do just that. The circumstances where a young girl is seeking advice to discontinue her pregnancy, the point I would have thought of any independent family planning agency would be to give her advice that would allow her to do just that.

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer that they are two completely different circumstances that could be handled by the same independent family planning agency.

Of course I think any of those fake abortion clinics or fake family planning agencies are an absolute curse, but I hadn't assumed that actually needed to be said, because that's assuming the worst of somebody, which I generally don't tend to do, and if others do, then that's on them, not me, and I feel no need to legitimise that sort of malicious interpretation.

it still remains that your story is unsubstantiated.

One eyed Jack · 11-01-2018 04:02PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it still remains that your story is unsubstantiated.

So? I'm ok with that.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-01-2018 04:06PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would have thought of any independent family planning agency would be to give her advice that would allow her to do just that. The circumstances where a young girl is seeking advice to discontinue her pregnancy, the point I would have thought of any independent family planning agency would be to give her advice that would allow her to do just that.

I hope if choice based abortion comes into our country, that they do NOT operate like your describe. Only explaining to them the options that they showed up looking for.

I would prefer to live in a society that informs people of ALL their options in a given context, regardless of whether it was the options they actually showed up to inquire about or not.

Not least because when we go looking for information on options A B and/or C, we do not always know there even IS an option D, E, or F. Or we may know about D, E and F but be ill informed about them and we are not considering them because of that false information.

For example I have met people who think abortion is always a surgical scraping intervention. They did not know that it can be achieved with a simple pill at certain stages of gestation. Such people could rule out abortion as an option because they lacked that information.

Similarly in the opposite direction I can imagine scenarios where people show up looking for information about abortion, abortion they might not seek or have if they were informed of other options they did not know about, or had false information about.

No, I would be abundantly happen to have such family planning support groups give ALL the information possible on ALL options possible, as context demands.

NuMarvel · 11-01-2018 04:10PM

thee glitz wrote: »

Do you mean no point in changing the constitution because it would be popular to do so?

I mean there's no point changing the constitution just because it might be popular, but nice try in twisting my words to mean something other than what it plainly said (I'm guessing pro lifers get classes in that or something).

thee glitz wrote: »

There would be no need to add anything about complex clinical matters into it.

Amending it to allow for abortion in some cases (as it does already) should be possible.

Exception-based abortion is a complex clinical matter so good luck if you think you can add something that's about complex clinical matters that doesn't actually refer to those matters.

Just because you think it's possible, doesn't mean it is. Some of us have explained why we don't think it is, so rather than simply repeating yourself, why not point out the flaws in our logic?

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't think that kind of language needs to be in the constitution. We've enough of a way with words here that someone could come up with a suitable amendment quite succinctly. If there was a will (and I feel there is), there would be a way.

Well, why not start the ball rolling? Give us a rough idea of text you think can go into the constitution without creating more problems.

sondagefaux · 11-01-2018 04:13PM

end of the road wrote: »

Oldtree wrote: »

So you would agree then that if a woman (having full control) decides it isn't a viable situation, it isn't a viable situation?

no . a couple of examples of non-viable situations would be. FFA, threat to the mother's life, threat of permanent disability to the mother.

In Ireland, it's legally impossible to get an abortion in cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality (FFA) or where continuing a pregnancy threatens causing permanent disability to a pregnant woman.

The only way to change this is to either amend or repeal the existing constitutional provisions about abortion.

It seems that you do want to see abortion available in Ireland after all.

sondagefaux · 11-01-2018 04:17PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

Do you mean no point in changing the constitution because it would be popular to do so?

I mean there's no point changing the constitution just because it might be popular, but nice try in twisting my words to mean something other than what it plainly said (I'm guessing pro lifers get classes in that or something).

thee glitz wrote: »

There would be no need to add anything about complex clinical matters into it.

Amending it to allow for abortion in some cases (as it does already) should be possible.

Exception-based abortion is a complex clinical matter so good luck if you think you can add something that's about complex clinical matters that doesn't actually refer to those matters.

Just because you think it's possible, doesn't mean it is. Some of us have explained why we don't think it is, so rather than simply repeating yourself, why not point out the flaws in our logic?

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't think that kind of language needs to be in the constitution. We've enough of a way with words here that someone could come up with a suitable amendment quite succinctly. If there was a will (and I feel there is), there would be a way.

Well, why not start the ball rolling? Give us a rough idea of text you think can go into the constitution without creating more problems.

The 1983 text was intended by its supporters to make it explicit that abortion was ruled out in Ireland in all circumstances.

Instead it ended up being the basis for the constitutional right to abortion in the circumstances in which it's now available.

As unintended consequences go, that's about 100 out of 10.

kylith · 11-01-2018 04:28PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You've read the original post, twisted it, then quoted it again, you're not dense so I know you're quite capable of reading it as it was intended.

If someone you admit is not dense cannot work out what you are getting at perhaps you could state it again in plain English.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's entirely one possibility, not the only one, which is why I didn't specify gender but rather referred to anyone who would exploit someone in that situation for their own benefit. I'm aware of it happening where young women experiencing crisis pregnancies have approached family planning clinics for advice regarding their pregnancy only to be advised that they might be better off having an abortion. That's not the kind of advice they had in mind.

Ok, so you think that counselling services will push women toward abortions, despite offering no evidence of that, and there being hard evidence of the exact opposite. I have copypasted an article from the times below so no-one will have to deal with the paywall:
TLDR: Crisis pregnany ‘counsellor’ tells woman that abortion will give her cancer, turn her into an abuser, lies about abortifactant pill, shows pictures of 20 week termination.

A Dublin-based pregnancy counselling centre has been secretly recorded advising that abortions cause breast cancer and can turn women into child abusers.
A counsellor at the clinic, which is unregulated under Irish law, was filmed giving advice to an undercover Times reporter that was described as dangerous, outrageous and inaccurate by the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
h
Undercover footage shows techniques to pressure women out of having an abortion
The Women’s Centre on Berkeley Street in Dublin 7 advertises itself as an impartial source of advice for women who want to travel to the UK to access an abortion but has direct links to a Catholic anti-abortion group. It claims to have clinics in Cork, Galway, Sligo, London and Bristol.
The reporter was shown pictures of aborted foetuses and had her mental state questioned when she indicated that she wanted an abortion.
A woman working at the clinic, who claimed to be a counsellor, told her that breasts and ovaries were connected and that when a pregnancy ended unexpectedly a woman’s reproductive system could be damaged, causing breast cancer.
The counsellor, who said that she had been working with clinics for 18 years, also told the reporter that abortion could lead to women abusing their children in the future.
“That doesn’t mean that women get their kids and knock the head off them. It means that they have been known to neglect their children or over-protect them. It’s a psychological thing. Like a bereavement,” she said.
She said that it was too late at six weeks’ gestation to terminate with mifepristone and misoprostol, pills that induce miscarriage. The pills can, in fact, be safely used to end a pregnancy up to ten weeks’ gestation.
The counsellor also discussed what she said were the consequences of terminating a pregnancy.
“Now, the first side-effect is death,” she said.
The vast majority of women experience no complications after accessing a legal termination, and the mortality rate for abortion is similar to other elective procedures at 1 in every 10,000.
The Times was shown pictures of aborted foetuses at eight and 20 weeks’ gestation.
“What you see there is the placenta. The other part that you can make that out there, they are body parts,” the counsellor said.
The reporter was asked what pregnancy was, what abortion was and if she thought it was fair on the foetus to have an abortion.
“So what I have to ask myself is: could you be a psychological risk for the way you answered [those] questions? Do you know what I mean? You’re 26, which is quite young. This is the blueprint for the rest of your reproductive time in the future,” the counsellor said.
“If you’re going to have children in the future, it’ll all rest on this. If you get breast cancer, you’re a beautiful 26 year old, quite intelligent, your whole life ahead of you, if you make a mistake, you know . . . ”
The reporter said that she did not want to tell her parents about the abortion.
“What do you tell your parents if something physical happens to you? If you got one or all of those side-effects. You really need to look at this a bit more,” the counsellor said.
The reporter was advised to go to the centre’s clinic in London and was told that other UK abortion clinics could give her an infection.
Peter Boylan, head of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said that the counsellor’s assertions about the risk of breast cancer were “absolutely incorrect”.
“That is outrageous. That is just not true at all. That would mean that any woman who experienced a stillbirth or whose baby died in the womb would be at an increased risk of breast cancer too”, he said.
Mr Boylan said that the side-effects of abortion could include a very small risk to a woman’s fertility and future pregnancies but in only a minority of cases.
“The majority of women experience absolutely no complications,” he said.
He added that there was no evidence that women who had abortions went on to abuse children. “That is also outrageous,” he said.
The reporter was told that the Women’s Centre in Dublin was used by a high number of migrant women. The clinic is connected to the same London address and phone number as the Good Counsel Network, which has compared abortion to terrorism and has defended the Magdalene laundries.
Another service in London, also called the Women’s Centre and registered at another address connected to the Good Counsel Network, has been censored by UK advertising standards for falsely claiming to run an abortion clinic when it would not refer women for terminations.
The Good Counsel Network claims to run what it describes as a “mother and baby” home in the UK, in which women who have been talked out of abortions now live. It holds “vigils” outside Marie Stopes clinics in the UK and has boasted on its website that it has reduced the opening hours of British abortion services by staging such demonstrations.
There are no laws regulating independent crisis pregnancy agencies in Ireland and the HSE has no power to investigate agencies such as the Women’s Centre. A small number of state-funded organisations are subject to the Regulation of Information Act, which restricts how much information about abortion can be given to women.
The reporter was given literature that claimed abortion by pill might not be successful after seven weeks. It said that terminating a pregnancy could lead to side-effects such as suicidal impulses, an intense interest in babies, constant sighing, guilt, crying, swallowing, a preoccupation with death, a loss of interest in sex, a coma, loss of organs, a desire to end relationships, a loss of maternal instincts and lower self esteem.
The reporter was instructed to come back the following week for an ultrasound scan, which was performed at the Berkeley Street clinic by a woman who said that she was a nurse working at a Dublin hospital. The nurse identified that the undercover reporter was not pregnant.
A spokesman for the Women’s Centre declined to respond to questions and made a series of claims about The Times’s motivations and its fear of “the truth”.
He added that the centre had “thousands of happy customers whom we have helped over 20 years”.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not necessarily, the 8th only comes into play when there is a risk to the right to life of the unborn. In cases where a pregnant woman wants to continue her pregnancy and give birth and raise the child, the 8th isn't any obstruction to that.

Untrue. Because of the 8th a pregnant woman can have procedures such as episiotomies and c-sections performed without their consent. They can have their membranes ruptured, which is against medical best practise, to speed labour. If they try to refuse they can be brought to court.
Pregnant women who are diagnosed with cancer can have treatment delayed until the cancer has spread sufficiently to be a risk to her life. Women who need medication to stay healthy may be denied that medication if they become pregnant.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know, 'Duh', because the far more reasonable assumption is that pregnant women don't want to have abortions, and yet you assume that they are going to happen anyway, and the question I simply asked is why would you assume they would still want an abortion if they didn't feel they had to have to have one? I think we can take it from your response that they wouldn't.

No-one wants to have an abortion because it’s a terribly unpleasant procedure. No-one wants to have a root canal or a double bypass either, but if they feel that they need it they will have it.
Before Irish women could travel to the UK they threw themselves down stairs, gave themselves alcohol poisoning, took scalding baths, and ruptured membranes with knitting needles. Abortion not being legal does not stop women from getting abortions, it makes abortions less safe.
Since abortions being illegal doesn’t stop women having abortions wouldn’t it be better if those abortions could be done safely and legally, so that those women can get proper aftercare should anything go wrong, without having to fear legal issues?[

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reason I'm against such a move is because you don't give people independence from the State and teach them to generate their own wealth by making them more dependent upon the State for their income.

So, you want to make women have children they can’t afford, when they don’t want to have them, but you’re also against giving them enough money that they can feel that abortion isn’t the only option for a pregnancy they can’t afford?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now you're talking, but that's not the monumental social and cultural shift you make it out to be, and there are a growing number of employers who recognise the value in recognising that their employees families are important, and have all sorts of initiatives in place to attract top talent with a focus on recognising the importance to them of their families. I'm very fortunate that my employer not only offers but actually actively encourages that sort of flexibility.

That’s good, not all do. And it’s a common remark on threads here about the wages gap that of course women shouldn’t expect to earn as much as men if they’re going to take all that time off to have children.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's a social and cultural shift that would need to take place within not just in Ireland, but internationally, so to try and tie it in with the repeal of the 8th amendment is at best a stretch.

It’s still relevant to this debate. Women who never want to have children cannot be electively sterilised, and are then denied abortion in Ireland if their contraception fails.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You could have the most comprehensive sex ed you like in schools, and it won't make one iota of a difference outside of the school classroom. If the issue were truly influenced by what you consider a lack of adequate sex education, then we would expect the number of crisis pregnancies to be much higher than it actually is.

Studies, which have already been quoted, show that more and better sex ed is linked to lower teenage pregnancy.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Consider for example a number of girls whom you would have went to school with, all received the same quality sex education (on the assumption that their parents agreed to allow their children to participate). Some of those girls will have experienced crisis pregnancies, and some of them won't, therefore it's reasonable to assume another external factor influences behaviour than just sex education or indeed lack thereof. Numerous studies have shown that the most influential factor as a predictor of attitudes to sex and sexuality and pregnancy and family and so on, is indeed the family, and not the school.

And if that education is lacking in the family where can they get it except school?
Currently a lot of schools draft in Accord, a Catholic agency, to do sex education. Getting a religious group in to do this is patently ridiculous.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are some forms of long-term contraception available on the medical card already, and there are numerous places where condoms at least are available free of charge. I can guarantee you the decrease in the abortion rate wasn't solely as a result of the increased availability of contraception, but more likely due to encouraging people to be responsible for their own sexual health.

Which is easier to do when contraception is very cheap or free.

Where are condoms available free of charge? I have never seen this outside of one free one at college rag week.
And for women who don’t qualify for a medical card things like the pill, coil, or implant is quite expensive.

sondagefaux · 11-01-2018 04:32PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

sondagefaux wrote: »

It will develop or it might develop? It's not certain that every conception results in the live birth of a viable child. Far from it: between 10% and 20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriages, although the real figure is likely to be far higher as many miscarriages occur so early that women never knew they were pregnant.

It has the potential to develop, in a way that neither the sperm nor the egg do. More, it's oriented towards development; development will happen unless Something Goes Wrong. Of its nature, it's constantly developing towards maturity, and the only way this will stop is if something happens to bring about its death.

So, yeah, it's fundamentally different from the sperm or the egg in that respect, neither of which will develop at all unless a particular contingency - fertilisation - occurs.

What the moral or ethical implications of this difference are is another matter, of course. But that the difference exists is not really open to question.

Well it is open to question since you're choosing to assert that potential only exists once certain conditions have been met, ignoring that others have different opinions about when the potential begins.

For example, the Catholic Church opposes 'artificial' contraception because it believes that prevention of sperm meeting egg is the destruction of the potential to create life.

The Irish Supreme Court ruled that only embryos implanted in the womb can be considered the 'unborn' (with potential for life) and thus does not agree that potential human life begins at the moment of conception.

In the early Christian tradition, there was disagreement at what point a foetus became a potential human being. Some argued it began at the moment of conception, some argued it began at the end of the first trimester, when the foetus 'quickened' and gained a soul (ensoulmemt).

Yours assertion that it's a matter of fact as to when potential human life begins is not supported by the evidence.

At what stage potential human life exists or has developed has been a matter of debate for centuries.

Zubeneschamali · 11-01-2018 05:07PM

sondagefaux wrote: »

As unintended consequences go, that's about 100 out of 10.

Indeed, and Alan Shatter, who has some legal training, explicitly pointed this out in the Dáil, that the pro-life campaign were about to make abortion legal, and they didn't listen.

And for all the youngsters who weren't around: no, this was not the plan, and as soon as the ruling came down, the prolifers immediately tried to remove suicide as a reason for abortion, and to keep travel illegal. Twice on the suicide thing, in fact, 10 years apart.

They failed each time.

NuMarvel · 11-01-2018 05:17PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And for all the youngsters who weren't around: no, this was not the plan, and as soon as the ruling came down, the prolifers immediately tried to remove suicide as a reason for abortion, and to keep travel illegal. Twice on the suicide thing, in fact, 10 years apart.

Some of them, eg Lucinda Creighton, suggested a third referendum on the suicide aspect back in 2012 when it looked like we might be finally legislating for the X Case.

....... · 11-01-2018 05:26PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 11-01-2018 05:30PM

This post has been deleted.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments