One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
eviltwin wrote: » And none of that has anything at all to do with keeping/repealing the 8th.
volchitsa wrote: » 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.)
Bannasidhe wrote: » Saying it happened is not evidence. Geez. It really isn't that hard. No, it shouldn't be this tedious but some people will insist that just because they stated it then it's true. Two scenarios: Woman :" I'm pregnant and I don't know what to do...(insert personal information here)". Clinic : " Abortion might be your best option..." Woman: " I'm pregnant and I don't know what to do...(insert personal information here)". 'Clinic' : " Well if you have an abortion there is a very real chance you'll get breast cancer and become a child abuser." You presented one of those as a bad thing to make some point or other about something. You did not give any evidence the bad thing you were referring to actually happened. It may have but we don't know. If it did then what happens is the woman says "No, I don't want an abortion" so that is ruled out as an option and the remaining options can be considered. It's hardly as if the FPC said "you have to have an abortion and that's that no choice!" Seriously, woman goes to FPC, is told (presumably having outlined her circumstances) that abortion might be the best option for her is hardly outrageous. It's not like they told her if she didn't have an abortion she'll abuse the child now is it? Like I said - faux outrage on your part that you decided to share and when called on it you get all stroppy. All you have done really is undermine your own position by demonstrating you make claims you can't substantiate. But if you are ok with that so am I.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Neither of those scenarios are based upon the account I gave, and any faux outrage or stroppiness you imagine is also entirely something you've made up yourself to try and apply it to me. But I'm ok with that as your assertions don't change my position, nor my demeanour for that matter, in any way, shape or form whatsoever. Gets you a few likes though, that's important :pac:
One eyed Jack wrote: » No, you haven't read that right. You appear to have missed the bit where I said that my neighbour never took a penny off my parents. To most people that would imply that my parents offered her money, but she wouldn't take it. Not to you of course, unsurprisingly. And no, I'm not here lecturing anyone about taking responsibility for their children, I'm here having a discussion, in which you seem desperate to make sure that not just I, but now my parents, are painted out to be terrible people. I would expect any grown adult would simply laugh at such childish nonsense, as I'm doing now. You'll just have to take my word for that too though.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
volchitsa wrote: » Hey you could even try sticking to provable facts and a few serious studies instead.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Good Man. You keep going as you are. Sure you are doing the pro-choice side great favours with your (ever shifting) position and (strident I said it so it's true) demeanour. The comment about likes is particularly good. Very Trumpesque. I'm sure you'll get bigly likes too someday.
volchitsa wrote: » I don't think anyone who is not absolutely on their uppers should allow someone to look after their seven children on a regular basis and not pay them. Grandparents sometimes do it because they're their grandchildren, but if the parents can afford to pay anything at all I think it would be a decent gesture to show the grandparents are not being taken for granted. As for non related people doing it for nothing, well I suspect you're taking family legend for reality. If the neighbours were so wealthy that extra money was useless to them, it's a bit off to expect them to commit to raising not one or two but seven children. And the reality is that most people were not that well off really. Truly bizarre. And yes, you were posting long posts earlier about single parents not expecting the state to help with child care. Like here : [ As for being "determined" to make you and your parents "look bad", you posted that, not me, I didn't ask you to. No determination from me, just a personal reaction to your personal anecdote. You want to police people's reactions to your posts, but it doesn't work like that. And if it bothers you, you can always change your posting style. Hey you could even try sticking to provable facts and a few serious studies instead.
volchitsa wrote: » I don't think anyone who is not absolutely on their uppers should allow someone to look after their seven children on a regular basis and not pay them. Grandparents sometimes do it because they're their grandchildren, but if the parents can afford to pay anything at all I think it would be a decent gesture to show the grandparents are not being taken for granted. As for non related people doing it for nothing, well I suspect you're taking family legend for reality. If the neighbours were so wealthy that extra money was useless to them, it's a bit off to expect them to commit to raising not one or two but seven children. And the reality is that most people were not that well off really.
Truly bizarre. And yes, you were posting long posts earlier about single parents not expecting the state to help with child care. Like here :
As for being "determined" to make you and your parents "look bad", you posted that, not me, I didn't ask you to. No determination from me, just a personal reaction to your personal anecdote. You want to police people's reactions to your posts, but it doesn't work like that.
And if it bothers you, you can always change your posting style. Hey you could even try sticking to provable facts and a few serious studies instead.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It's a bit rich btw your asking me to stick to provable facts and a few serious studies when most of your argument as regards the repeal of the 8th amendment consists of a mere handful of high profile anecdotes
One eyed Jack wrote: » You make all these assumptions as though people don't do things for other people simply by way of helping them out, and for no other reason than simply because they can, but that's not, and has never been my reality. There exists plenty of people in this world who do things and help other people out simply because they can, and it's really not as unusual as you make it out to be. It might not be the way you work or what you're used to, but it's the way I work and it's what I'm used to and it's worked out well so far.
One eyed Jack wrote: » How is that lecturing anyone about needing to take responsibility for their children? That's what you originally claimed I was lecturing people about? I wasn't lecturing anyone. If you chose to take it that way then I will tell you that's your responsibility, not mine.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I'm not looking to police people's reactions at all, you asked me had you read that right and said you couldn't get your head around it, and I pointed out to you that one possible reason you couldn't get your head around it is because you hadn't read it right.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Doesn't bother me in the slightest, I expect you to react negatively to anything I say. I fully expect if I were to say the sky is blue, you'd be in there like a shot to contradict me. What does bother me though is as I explained to another poster is when you choose to misrepresent what I actually said, when it's written there in front of you.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It's a bit rich btw your asking me to stick to provable facts and a few serious studies when most of your argument as regards the repeal of the 8th amendment consists of a mere handful of high profile anecdotes that gained media attention in the 30 odd years of it's existence, and the only reason they gained media attention is because those cases are thankfully as rare as they are.
volchitsa wrote: » "Bringing up" seven children whose parents are working full time hours regularly is not "helping someone out" it's a full time occupation. Now I'm aware that people tend to ignore the work done by mothers with small children precisely because it's unpaid, but it's taking things to an extreme when neighbours are expected to fill in, unpaid, as well.
Since I've always worked full time except when I was on maternity leave or, very occasionally, unemployed, I don't see how it's my responsibility in any way. I'm just saying how it comes across, as very condescending and generalizing, and actually very dismissive of people whose circumstances you know nothing of.
Except I had read it right, your parents actually allowed a neighbour to raise seven of their children while they worked full time and never paid them anything. And you think that's a good thing.
I think it's selfish and arrogant. I'm kind of not surprised TBH.
Gosh it didn't take you long to change your mind about my posts did it?
I see this has been answered already, so yeah, genuine incidents are not scientific data, but they are actual verifiable consequences of a law that was intended to prevent abortions but which has not done that.
So even one single serious negative consequence for a woman who was giving birth rather than having an abortion is enough to call into question a law which doesn't do what it was meant to do and does have all sorts of unintended negative consequences. And there are a lot more than one such incident.
(As an aside, and as others have pointed out, how do you square your current support for retaining the 8th etc with your previously expressed support for abortion to be available right up to due date iirc? Have you changed your mind?)
NuMarvel wrote: » 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).
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?
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: » Because I'm not an expert in constitutional law.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
thee glitz wrote: » Because I'm not an expert in constitutional law. I guess reference could be made to burden imposed by the continued protection of life.
While it is quite appropriate for this Committee to be concerned with legal certainty, we must accept that absolute legal certainty is not achievable. Indeed, Ms Justice Laffoy made that point here last week. Thus, rather than try to achieve absolutelegal certainty, the aim should be to create a reasonable level of legal certainty. Thisis one that makes clear the scope of the Oireachtas’ legislative power, although it may still require the exercise of judgement in determining whether a proposed legal enactment is within that power. It may also be subject to a finding by a Court that thisjudgement was inaccurate, resulting in some or all of a piece of law being struck down. In my view, both simple repeal and repeal and replace allow for a reasonable level of legal certainty, although in the case of replace much depends on the wording that is proposed..... Constitutions should enable the organs of the state to govern effectively, i.e. to respond to the real governance needs in society, which shift and change over time, within constitutionally articulated limitations about rights and the separation of powers. They should also enable the state to meet its international human rights law obligations, which we are currently in breach of....
sondagefaux wrote: » They don't do those things because they can buy pills online.
These include coat hangers, starvation, high doses of vitamin C, strenuous exercise, large quantities of alcohol, scalding water, drinking bleach, throwing themselves downstairs, or running into traffic. Rebecca, who is 39 years old and has two children, explains: “I was walking up to 20km every day. I was doing sit ups, I was doing squats. I was doing anything I could possibly do to make this happen. I don't think I ate for several days because I had read that if you have an extremely low calorie count and you're taking high doses of Vitamin C that can cause a miscarriage. I was actually reading pregnancy sites that warn you not to do things and everything they were warning you not to do was exactly what I was doing; roasting hot baths to the point that I almost scalded myself, and when I think about it I'm an educated woman, do you know, I'm a grown woman. It's just so sad."
NuMarvel wrote: » None of us are, but some of us can see the flaws with your suggestion. However you either can't or don't want to, so I guess we'll leave it there until you have something new to add.
thee glitz wrote: » If you're not an expert, they're perceived flaws until confirmed. Yes, we will have to leave it there for now, until someone can clarify.
NuMarvel wrote: » To be fair, some women may still be doing these things. One of the witnesses at the Committee on the 8th referred to interviews with women who had abortions in the UK or via pills. Those women spoke about what options they were considering if travel or pills hadn't been accessible. I'd find it hard to believe that at least some women, even if only a handful, haven't actually tried these or other methods. Just because One Eye Jack hasn't heard about it is doesn't mean it hasn't happened, especially when women who do talk about it risk a 14 year prison sentence.
Bannasidhe wrote: » ^^^^^^^^ Fiona de Londras ^^^^^^ professor of law ^^^^quite a lot of details and clarification ^^^^ linky up there^^^^^she took aaaages writing that. Read books and everything. Be rude not to read her clarification. In my view, both simple repeal and repeal and replace allow for a reasonable level of legal certainty
In my view, both simple repeal and repeal and replace allow for a reasonable level of legal certainty
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
thee glitz wrote: » If you're not an expert, they're perceived flaws until confirmed.
thee glitz wrote: » What are we to do on the basis of the imagination of a handful of people saying what stupid and illegal things they might have done?
thee glitz wrote: » Thankfully, WHO research states that unsafe abortions occur with negligible incidence here, or not at all.
ebbsy wrote: » It's up to the woman at the end of the day, isn't it ? Us men ain't the ones who have to carry the baby.
NuMarvel wrote: » The decision is up to the woman at the end of the day. But it'll be up to men to turn up and vote on the day to make sure a woman can make that decision if she wants to. Because you can be sure that every man who is against it will be there.
Fizzlesque wrote: » why is being given a life on earth considered to be better than not being given a life on earth? Why the automatic assumption that every potential life should become a living, breathing life - nature's interventions excluded?
