The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

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.

If Bannasidhe assumed you held the opinion that was ok then Bannasidhe would have written "I assume to are ok with...", but I didn't.

I asked if you prefer the fact that there are co-called family planning clinic blatantly telling women and girls who are in crises (as evidenced by the fact that these clinics names pop up first on a google search for abortion advice) scaremongering lies.

It was a question.
Not a statement.

A question prompted by your faux outrage that actual family planning clinics could, allegedly, be suggesting abortion might be the best option to a woman/girl who has provided information we are not privy too.

You really shouldn't assume that other people are making assumptions.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

my argument has never been that an abortion bann stops abortion full stop. my argument has been and is, that the current system does stop some abortions from happening, and that article doesn't disprove this IMO.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the media can only do so much given that these days it's effectiveness in terms of this country is not as great as it once was.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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.

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.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it doesn't differ at all as i have been clear on both points and how they relate to each other. the idea that it's about stopping women from getting what they want is laughable nonsense, which has no basis in validity. what is happening is yourself and others are twisting people's post to mean something else completely different.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the article cannot ultimately substantiate that the current system doesn't prevent some irish women from procuring abortions. what it says is that an abortion bann doesn't stop abortion happening full stop, something i have never stated otherwise or argued against. it does not say that an abortion bann doesn't stop some abortions.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

and for every such article there is plenty more of the opposite.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i haven't said anything of the sort. you are simply twisting what i have said to make out that i said such.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

in that case we can throw out the logic that some pro-life clynics are telling people they will develop cancer or will die or will become child abusers. however to do that would be stupid given we have proof of it happening, just like it would be stupid to suggest some pro-choice clynics aren't engaging in lying.

kylith wrote: »

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

I think I was clear enough the first time. It's your reinterpretation made a complete balls of what I said. I'm not responsible for that.

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.

I offered evidence of it. You don't accept my word is good enough and that's fair enough. I didn't question a single person who gave their accounts of their experiences because I would see that as disrespectful and I'm willing to take them at their word. Different standards I suppose, I can accept that our standards aren't the same.

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.

And that's why I preceded what I said with 'not necessarily', because generally the 8th isn't an obstruction to the vast, vast majority of women who are pregnant and want to continue their pregnancy and give birth and want to raise a child. That's one of the reasons I think at least from my experiences of talking to women and young girls about these issues that they simply can't relate to some of the issues raised by the existence of the 8th amendment - because it's never been an issue that they have personally been affected by, so they aren't aware of the potential issues for others. They can go all the way through pregnancy and never have to even think about the 8th amendment. I'm not going to say whether that's right or wrong, I'm just going to say I'm not in the business of scaremongering people.

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?

Plenty of women still can't go to the UK and we don't hear of women doing any of the things you mention above? It appears that abortion being illegal does in fact tend to put women off the idea of considering abortion, and making it legal would then naturally of course mean that women would consider it.

Of course none of that is particularly of any consequence in terms of whether or not women choose to avail of abortion through other means either by travelling or availing of buying pills online, and of course it would be ideal if they were able to avail of abortion legally and safely and get proper aftercare without having to fear legal issues, but that's the choice they're willing to make, knowing the potential consequences of their actions, and so I would be more in favour of a system that provides intervention and support long before any woman would ever get to that point, before they ever even were to become pregnant in the first place.

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?

Stall on there, I don't want to make women do anything. Each and every woman has a mind of their own, and I would want each and every woman to have the freedom and the resources to decide for themselves, what is best for themselves, and support them in acting in what they believe is acting in their best interests. To that end, no, I don't believe that just giving anyone money is actually helping them. In case it hasn't been made clear already and as January has been at pains to point out - child benefit of what is it now €140, or a tax free allowance of €30 per month is a mere pittance, as are any of the other welfare payments from the State such as OFPA, DCA, etc, the list goes on. Suffice to say - they don't actually teach anyone that they are perfectly capable of generating and maintaining their own wealth and therefore not being dependent upon the State.

Again though - that starts before a woman is ever pregnant, and doesn't just apply to pregnant women either. There are a number of men, albeit thankfully a minority, who claim that because they cannot afford to support their children that they should either be absolved of any financial responsibility, or imagine that the State should provide for their children. They too, should be taught how to generate wealth so that should they ever find themselves in a position where they have fathered a child, they don't immediately assume that responsibility for their child is entirely either the mothers responsibility, or the responsibility of the State.

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.

Erra look, I'm sick to my back teeth of hearing about the wages gap and all the rest of that nonsense. Of course if a woman takes time out of her career to raise a family, society should appreciate that, and we should show our appreciation for that by not as you pointed out earlier, surreptitiously penalising women who choose to raise a family and maintain their careers. It doesn't need to be one or the other, and it shouldn't be. Women who choose to work in the home should be as appreciated and rewarded for their contribution to society the same as any man who puts down however many hours in his chosen career to contribute to society.

They're slowly cottoning onto that idea in the States whereas in Ireland where we are about 20 years behind the social curve, there's now talks of introducing tax relief for hiring child minders while both parents go out to work to try and ease the financial burden of childcare. Both my parents worked and we were all practically raised by our neighbour who never took a penny from my parents, but who managed to take care of all seven of us on a State pension! Of course with every generation, expectations rise, and it would be nothing short of a miraculous achievement were a pensioner able to do that today :pac:

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.

Fair enough. Although personally I'm still struggling to see how an amendment which protects the right to life of the unborn could actually be applied in the context of women who want to be sterilised but their GP's are reluctant to perform the procedure and that's why they feel patronised. I can't either agree or disagree with whether it's relevant or not but if you feel it is, then fair enough.

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

Yeah that last exchange with nozz was just painful, and given I'm half-baked on painkillers right now I'd rather we didn't have to nit-pick through all that again. Suffice to say we obviously had different ideas in mind there.

And if that education is lacking in the family where can they get it except school?

If you feel the education you'd prefer for children is lacking in the family, then I'd respectfully suggest there's not a whole lot you're going to be able to do about that, because the family is recognised by the Irish Constitution at least as the primary and natural educators of children, and it is the values within that family will have more of an influence on children's education and personal development than any amount of sex education in a school environment will do.

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.

Meh, could go on for a long time on that one, but I'll simplify it by saying I understand where you're coming from, but in a Catholic ethos school, I really wouldn't expect they'll be inviting anyone other than a religious group in to give talks on relationships and sex education. Decisions like that are generally up to the Board of Management of the school and their individual policy on sex education whether they decide to keep it in-house so to speak and have the curriculum delivered by teachers, most of whom would really rather be doing something else, or outsource it to an outside agency.

Personally, I would suggest it's best left to the parents. I know you may disagree with that and say parents aren't informed enough and all the rest of it, but at the end of the day it's in the parents own best interests and the best interests of their children that sex education and the families values around sex and sexuality be imparted to their children as part of a broader, ongoing conversation rather than a "there's nothing on tv, let's sit down and I'll tell you about when you were conceived" kind of conversation...

Poor child would be put off sex for life :pac:

Where are condoms available free of charge? I have never seen this outside of one free one at college rag week.

Health clinics up and down the country! Geez I even used work in a place where we used give out free condoms, and that was a long, long time ago now! I can walk into loads of clinics and I'll be given a bunch of condoms! I do believe you when you say you weren't aware of this because it's come as a shock (no pun intended ) to loads of people I know who weren't previously aware of it. Granted it's not particularly advertised, but then it shouldn't need to be as people should make it their business to find out about these things for themselves!

Even at that, nobody should ever be so strapped that they can afford to have sex but they can't afford at least a minimum means to protect both themselves and the person (or persons!), they're choosing to have sex with!

And for women who don’t qualify for a medical card things like the pill, coil, or implant is quite expensive.

Not so prohibitively expensive that if they really wanted to avail of those options they couldn't afford to save up for them. That's only looking for excuses when you start pointing out that affordability of contraception is ever a legitimate reason for why any woman (or man for that matter) isn't able to afford to be responsible for themselves and their sexual health, not to mention the responsibility and duty of care they have towards others.

....... wrote: »

Jack - just to say that your mysterious experience does not = evidence.

You still havent even told us about this unlikely experience that gives you so much exposure to crisis pregnancies yet leaves you so ignorant on then negative effects of the 8th Amendment.

And as I said to ohnonotgmail earlier -


So? I'm ok with that.

You can take it or leave it as you wish, and as I also pointed out to kylith - I haven't once questioned anyone here on their experiences or asked them to provide evidence of their experiences. I'm willing to take them at their word. That's good enough for me. If that's not good enough for you, then that's your problem, not mine.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. You didn't.
You said "I am aware of..."
That's not evidence. That is unsubstantiated hearsay.

Then you claimed that because anti-abortionist 'clinics' tell lies then obvs actual family planning clinics advise abortions.

Well, yes they do - as an option.

No I didn't? I offered that as evidence before you ever posted about fake abortion clinics! I was making the point in relation to young women who went to family planning clinics looking for advice about continuing their pregnancy, not looking for advice about abortion. In case it isn't yet clear - that's not the kind of advice they went there looking for, and that's not the kind of advice they wanted.

Geez, plain english, it really isn't that hard, and it shouldn't be this tedious.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that's why I preceded what I said with 'not necessarily', because generally the 8th isn't an obstruction to the vast, vast majority of women who are pregnant and want to continue their pregnancy and give birth and want to raise a child. That's one of the reasons I think at least from my experiences of talking to women and young girls about these issues that they simply can't relate to some of the issues raised by the existence of the 8th amendment - because it's never been an issue that they have personally been affected by, so they aren't aware of the potential issues for others. They can go all the way through pregnancy and never have to even think about the 8th amendment. I'm not going to say whether that's right or wrong, I'm just going to say I'm not in the business of scaremongering people.

So I've given you specific examples where women did get substandard maternity care and your reply is "most women aren't affected by this" - umm. OK.

You've given no evidence of course, just "my personal experience" but you do know that the plural of anecdote is not data, and "personal experience" is not a study. And especially not vague hand waves at "personal experience".

The reality is that most pregnancies go fine, and women usually aren't made aware of how their care is affected by the peculiarities of Irish legislation. How would they know, when they usually haven't given birth elsewhere? Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and the work of AIMS for example (a patients' group set up to improve maternity care, not to bring about repeal) has made this painfully clear.

Plenty of women still can't go to the UK and we don't hear of women doing any of the things you mention above? It appears that abortion being illegal does in fact tend to put women off the idea of considering abortion, and making it legal would then naturally of course mean that women would consider it.

Evidence please. I'm getting really rather sick of this.

They're slowly cottoning onto that idea in the States whereas in Ireland where we are about 20 years behind the social curve, there's now talks of introducing tax relief for hiring child minders while both parents go out to work to try and ease the financial burden of childcare. Both my parents worked and we were all practically raised by our neighbour who never took a penny from my parents, but who managed to take care of all seven of us on a State pension! Of course with every generation, expectations rise, and it would be nothing short of a miraculous achievement were a pensioner able to do that today :pac:

I was going to skip out the rest of that post, but I happened to notice this, which is irrelevant to the discussion but like... WTF??

Have I read you right? Your parents worked and expected a neighbour to look after you for nothing??

Hey, my parents both worked, in the 70s when most mothers still stayed home, and they always paid for someone to look after us. Always.

And here you are lecturing about people needing to take responsibility for their children. But you know what, your neighbours shouldn't have had to provide free labour for your parents. You don't think that was a free subsidy?

And you're even complaining because today's pensions wouldn't be enough for those neighbours - so who do you think pays the pensions? Your parents were doubly subsidized, by the neighbours and by the state. And earning a decent wage I'm sure too.

(I'm still wondering if you meant something else? I can't get my head around it.)

....... wrote: »

How is listing the options available giving advice they didnt want?

Are you suggesting that by informing a woman that abortion is a choice this is advice she doesnt want to hear?

These women were already aware that abortion was an option. I hadn't thought I needed to spell that out too. I didn't say that anyone "listed the options available" either by the way, in your usual way of ignoring what I actually said and substituting it with whatever suits you. I said they were advised that they might be better off to have an abortion. They weren't looking to be told that they might be better off to have an abortion when they were looking for advice on continuing their pregnancy. You keep missing that bit, and whether it's on purpose or by accident I'm still not sure yet.

I don't particularly care one way or the other if you aren't willing to accept my word as good enough. I do care however when you either by mistake or on purpose, misrepresent what I've actually said.