end of the road wrote: » i don't support abortion on demand. however, it is not realistic to be able to stop someone going abroad to procure it. no amount of rhetoric and twisting will change the reality of my actual view, which i have made clear a plenty in this and other abortion threads. it's very simple to understand, and no amount of your lies will change reality..
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
end of the road wrote: » if some pro-life clynics are telling lies to people then it stands to reason some pro-choice clynics also tell lies. the reality is some people tell lies.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » When it comes to a fetus at 16 weeks of before I struggle to see it in terms of "removing the rights of the unborn" so much as I notice no one, least of all yourself, has ever explained to me one single basis for why such a fetus should have rights in the first place. Hard to see the "removal" of something I see no basis for being there in the first place. It just doesn't parse for me. Sure current law may have such protections, but I genuinely see no basis for that state of affairs.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Firstly there is no "will" here. A rather significantly high proportion of pregnancies miscarry in this period. Your certainty about their fate is imagination based only. Secondly when you are saying here is that it is NOT A BABY now. The moment you say "X becomes Y" you are saying "X is NOT Y". So thanks for making our point for us!
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Then lock all men up because they are all potential rapists. Prosecuting them when they BECOME rapists is clearly not enough. That is the kind of nonsense that comes from basing rights in the present on potentials from the future.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Someone or something either has rights, or it does not. Aside from asserting that we should do it, you have given no basis AT ALL at ANY TIME for why we should manifest rights in the present based on what something MIGHT be in the future. Let alone why we should do so at the expense of the rights, well being, and free choices of someone (the pregnant woman) who actually is a sentient being with rights in the here and now. So double fail from you on that score.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Why? You assert this time and time again and every time you are asked to substantiate it you.... well... quite simply run away and ignore the post. I repeat my thought experiment from before. Imagine I build a gAI that will not just be conscious and sentient when I turn it on, but will in fact be capable of levels of consciousness and sentience beyond anything you and I are capable of. All that stops it reaching that potential is me flicking the on switch. Why is/should there be ANY moral onus on me to flick that switch rather than, say, dismantle the entire machine and build toasters and waffle makers out of it?
volchitsa wrote: » Sperm and eggs are also pre-babies. So they need protecting too?
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » ofll I consider the arguments on the pro life side progress. Decades and centuries ago masturbation was considered a sin. Also frivolous sex and after that birth control became the next Great Evil and the argument was always the same. Every Sperm is Sacred! So now after decades of bitterly fighting tooth and nail for every fraction of an inch, anyone who still says masturbation, sex and birth control are a Sin Unto the Lord sounds like a complete nutter and the anti choice brigade is very carefully steering away from the Bible basher image. After the above conceded retreats, the battle line has now moved into sperm and egg combining to form a zygote, or fully functioning and sentient human being as the anti side will have it. Feel free to say "no it isn't" and discredit your entire argument. I'm not a fan of abortion, but sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALAAAA!!!! I I CAN'T HEAR IT, IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!" is not the answer. In the end it will be the majority that decides and you will have to concede this battle line as well.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » And for 2 of those 3, we must repeal the 8th. Good to have you on board.
sondagefaux wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
sondagefaux wrote: » As unintended consequences go, that's about 100 out of 10.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
thee glitz wrote: » Do you mean no point in changing the constitution because it would be popular to do so?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » it still remains that your story is unsubstantiated.
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.
....... wrote: » Oh I see - you mean where you were ASKED if you would prefer the opposite? Asking =/= suggesting you hold the opinion you know?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
....... 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.
