The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

eviltwin wrote: »

That makes it sound like abortion would be compulsory for people on low incomes. I don't know how you see people, especially young people, having children they can't afford as being good for them, having children when your options are limited just limits them further.

It also doesn't address the needs of someone who doesn't want to be pregnant. She has no options unless she can afford to go to England. That's really socially inclusive.

It's easy to determine how I see people when you aren't working off inherently negative assumptions about people who don't share your perspective. I'm not assuming anyone here who doesn't share my perspective is a morally repugnant individual, in fact I'm pretty sure they're not.

I don't see young people having children they can't afford as being good for them, and I would want them to have every support possible so that not only could they afford to raise a family, but that they wouldn't ever be in the position where they would feel the need to have an abortion.

If someone finds themselves in a position where they are pregnant and they don't want to be pregnant, then I have no doubt that people here will be willing to help her out in any way they can, and wouldn't simply abandon her once she'd had an abortion.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Having children not only increases our expectations for our children, but it increases our expectations of ourselves. That's why you'll see many people who effectively turn their lives around after having children

So by preventing abortion by poor people, we force them to turn their lives around to care for the children they don't want?

Sounds like a plan!

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So by preventing abortion by poor people, we force them to turn their lives around to care for the children they don't want?

Sounds like a plan!

Again, that's simply not what I said.

It's gone a bit tiresome at this stage so I'll just leave it at that for now.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn't. That's the point.

Having children not only increases our expectations for our children, but it increases our expectations of ourselves. That's why you'll see many people who effectively turn their lives around after having children, whereas they would have had little or no motivation to do so before then.

jesus that is the densest thing i've seen in this thread.

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again, that's simply not what I said.

It's gone a bit tiresome at this stage so I'll just leave it at that for now.

It's gone beyond tiresome Jack because you're not even willing to contemplate that all things being equal, in some cases it's best for a woman not to have a child simply because she doesn't WANT to.

What makes it so hard for you to understand that?

You say you're not making moral judgements on people but you are in the following ways:

1. You've assumed that some women will be forced into having an abortion.
2. You assume that it's better for people to have children than not have them, whether they want to or not.
3. You assume childless people have no motivation to get on in life

Any maybe worst of all you admit to hypocrisy of the highest order by saying you would finance the best ever abortion for your Granddaughter because you care about her. Think that thought right the way through Jack, it means you're willing to stop other women having abortions because you don't care about them.

What gives you that right?

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've already explained this now a number of times - because it effectively neuters their chances as a group of any opportunities for social mobility by discouraging them from having children.

But that is not what it does at all. You have just invented that. Abortion is an OPTION for people who are pregnant, who do not want to be. That is all. It does not discourage people from having children any more than condoms do. Why are you not also against condoms? Are they "discouraging them from having children" in your head and hence a pox on the poor? Come off it.

And what about the harm to a persons social mobility by being forced to have a child they do not want to have? You know one GREAT assistant to social mobility? University. But what of the girl who get's pregnant at 17? How many of them manage to continue their path to and through uni? Some do sure, but many do not.

But on top of all that, how does NOT having a child affect your social mobility? Perhaps start the answer to that question by explaining EXACTLY what you even mean by "social mobility" because I strongly suspect at the moment we both mean two massively different things by it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Having children not only increases our expectations for our children, but it increases our expectations of ourselves. That's why you'll see many people who effectively turn their lives around after having children, whereas they would have had little or no motivation to do so before then.

Woah there, you have changed your point. Above you said it "neuters their chances as a group of any opportunities for social mobility" and now you re saying it affects there MOTIVATION to do so.

That is two MASSIVELY different things. Having the chance to do X, and being motivated to take the chance to do X are massively different things. You are skipping now between the two as if they are the same.

But I am not buying the motivational narrative either. It is not like people sit around in the dark dundrums of some world devoid of motivation until suddenly children pop up and it is all light and rainbows and ambitions. Motivations take many forms, often concurrently, in many people.

And in fact some people also LOSE much of their motivation when they have children, so at times the complete opposite of your narrative is true. They may have, for example, been in high flying dedicated careers with a promotion ladder plan ahead of them, which they step back from to divert dedication to their child.

So no, NOTHING supporting your narrative at all here save some imaginary narrative of human motivation you have made up in your own head.

captbarnacles

Ah the poor don't really know what is good for them argument? in the states some politicians like to say social welfare demeans the people who use it because it discourages them from working. Similar logic.

You are really off beam here Jack. You are going to vote no to repeal the 8th because you think this is better in the long term for people who can't afford an abortion? all the while safe in the knowledge that you can afford to give a friend or relation the money if they need it.

It's really abhorrent thinking.

Billy86

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But I never suggested screw the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison? This is what I don't get, like what's with the extremes? 'If it's not one it must be the other' kind of thing. I don't point fingers at anyone here and ask what are they doing about the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison, because I assume each one of us does what we can, where we can, when we can.

Of course I'm going to treat people whom I know differently than those I don't, there's nothing bizarre about that? I mean, if you play it out, and I don't normally do hypotheticals, but even when it concerns medical care for my own family, we're covered by private healthcare. You don't surely expect that I should also provide for my neighbours private healthcare?

Luckily there's a simple solution for this that doesn't entail you putting anyone on your own private healthcare plan or any extremes being taken - make abortions available via public healthcare, which is something which you already contribute to.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn't. That's the point.

Having children not only increases our expectations for our children, but it increases our expectations of ourselves. That's why you'll see many people who effectively turn their lives around after having children, whereas they would have had little or no motivation to do so before then.

So if they have a child, that they would otherwise terminate,they may become motivated to increase their expectations in life. They may not either. But if they do, they'll have to pay for childcare to realise the expectations of a decent job/training/education, and the amount of money they can borrow for a decent home that they now expect will be significantly reduced due to having a dependent. So they may have higher expectations but realising those expectations becomes so much more challenging with a dependent.

Whereas they could have a termination and be just as likely to become motivated for themselves, with time/experience/life, and face a lot less challenges in actually realising their potential and expectations.

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Your attitude expressed above is human rights and access to the very best medical care for your friends and relations and screw the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison.

there is no "human right" to an abortion on demand, especially state funded. abortion on demand also isn't "medical care" but a form of birth control.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Yes, and your own personal interpretation of "as much as is practical" includes the garbage you were spouting about the right for protection for the pre-sentient.

It never actually said anything about pre-sentient rights. You thinking that's what it means does not make it so. Its merely your opinion.

no, it's not my interpretation, as i never made such an

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Your attitude expressed above is human rights and access to the very best medical care for your friends and relations and screw the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison.

there is no "human right" to an abortion on demand, especially state funded. abortion on demand also isn't "medical care" but a form of birth control.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Yes, and your own personal interpretation of "as much as is practical" includes the garbage you were spouting about the right for protection for the pre-sentient.

It never actually said anything about pre-sentient rights. You thinking that's what it means does not make it so. Its merely your opinion.

no, it's not my interpretation, as i never made such an interpretation. you claimed i made such an interpretation, which is different to me actually making such an interpretation. what i stated was that it was defacto a right because of the constitutional right, not that it was in itself a constitutional right. i never said the constitution said anything about "pre-sentient" rights, that was what you claimed that i stated, dispite it not being true, dispite me never stating as such and dispite explaining to you multiple times what my already clear post meant.

This post has been deleted.

pilly I'll answer this one.

pilly wrote: »

It's gone beyond tiresome Jack because you're not even willing to contemplate that all things being equal, in some cases it's best for a woman not to have a child simply because she doesn't WANT to.

What makes it so hard for you to understand that?

pilly I'm never willing to contemplate all things being equal in any circumstances because they never are. That's just not something I've ever experienced and I can only base my opinions on my experience and what evidence I have available to me. That's one of the reasons I find statistics in social studies can be notoriously unreliable because they are generally used to lobby one position over another, and will present an overall picture to support the basis of whatever idea it is they're putting forward.

Now, with that said, I don't even need to contemplate all things being equal to see that women in some cases believe it is not best for them to have a child or not to have a child simply because she doesn't want to. You'll get no quarrel with me on that score, and I've already said as much that I would do what I could for a woman in that situation.

What seems to be causing some people here great difficulty is what I would be prepared to do at an individual level, and what I would or wouldn't be prepared to support at a societal level. I have to be absolutely clear here - I have no issue at an individual level with any woman who would want an abortion because she wants to terminate her pregnancy, at any point for any reason. That is entirely her prerogative and I would and have supported women who have made that decision for themselves.

At societal level - it's an entirely different matter, because then it's not simply a matter of our personal morality as individuals, but a matter of social morality, in other words - ethics, and in that respect, I would not support any moves towards introducing more liberal policies in relation to abortion in Irish society. I don't see that as 'exporting the problem' as some posters here have put it. I see those women as choosing of their own volition either import pills or go abroad to avail of abortion in another jurisdiction. I don't support the importation of pills in the first place, and I don't support the idea of women going abroad to avail of abortion in another jurisdiction, but if that is what they choose to do, I won't pass judgement on them for doing so, but I would help them in any way I could. I would never attempt to stop them or attempt to change their minds, because that only introduces further confusion when they are already distressed.

It's not about me, it's about them making a decision for themselves, and to introduce my personal opinion of abortion as a social issue at that point is simply cruel. Many of my friends are aware of my stance, and they are also aware that I have never passed judgement upon them, and for the poster earlier who said he has never talked to women about these things, I personally don't find that all that unusual, nor do I think my own experiences of talking to women about these issues are in any way unusual either.

pilly wrote: »

You say you're not making moral judgements on people but you are in the following ways:

1. You've assumed that some women will be forced into having an abortion.
2. You assume that it's better for people to have children than not have them, whether they want to or not.
3. You assume childless people have no motivation to get on in life

I wouldn't say 'forced', I would say more likely coerced. I do know some women who feel they were forced into having an abortion, and I know women who feel they were forced into having children, whether that be either through a combination of circumstances or more often by the people in their lives at the time. I don't pretend to sympathise or empathise with these women simply because I don't know what it was like for them in those circumstances, but I will always do my best to help them in any way I can to alter their circumstances themselves so they don't have to feel like they will ever be in that position again.

2. I do not, and I never have. That's simply not true. When I said that, I was speaking in terms of the assumption that group of people actually want to have children, but for whatever reasons, the main factors being socioeconomic factors, whether it be family, support network or lack thereof, employment circumstances and so on (in fact the last factor I would consider is solely the financial factor, because that's always going to be affected by increasing inflation and recessions and booms and so on), they don't feel they are in a position to have children or to maintain a family.

My argument that it's better for people (generally, whether they be poor or wealthy) is not solely based upon their current socioeconomic status as individuals, but is based upon the ability of their children and future generations to be able to generate wealth independently and as a group. One of the ways in which this happens is through raising expectations of the next generation, and it is the parents of the previous generation who influence these raised expectations, ergo - children grow up with raised expectations and set higher standards for themselves than the previous generation.

3. No, and that's not what I said, because that would be silly. That's probably how ohnonotgmail read it too, which is why they determined it to be the densest thing they'd ever read (clearly they've never been exposed to some of my better work :pac:). I don't for a minute think that people who don't have children have no motivation to get on in life, in fact they are likely to be the group who imagines themselves to be at the pinnacle of life, winning at life even, while looking down upon people who are struggling with children. The fact is that they are two completely different lifestyle choices, and there are far more people in the developed world who have children and aren't struggling, than those who have children and are.

pilly wrote: »

Any maybe worst of all you admit to hypocrisy of the highest order by saying you would finance the best ever abortion for your Granddaughter because you care about her. Think that thought right the way through Jack, it means you're willing to stop other women having abortions because you don't care about them.

What gives you that right?

What gives me the right to want the best for my granddaughter as opposed to a complete stranger whom I have no relationship whatsoever? I don't see the inherent hypocrisy you appear to imagine is present in that scenario. Why would the welfare of other women enter that scenario as though I should view the welfare of complete strangers as equal to that of my own granddaughter? I'm thinking it through and I don't believe for a minute anyone would elevate considerations for the welfare of complete strangers to the same level as that of their family members or people they care about in their immediate circles. There's no hypocrisy in saying that the 8th amendment would apply equally to my granddaughter as it would anyone else in Irish society. Having the means to be able to ensure a better quality of life for my granddaughter while other people can not provide the same standard for their granddaughters as I can is not hypocrisy, and it doesn't mean I don't care about the welfare of other people either. As I have made the point many times already - it's not an either/or situation, and that's why I don't engage in thought experiments where all things are assumed to be equal because that kind of thinking simply has no basis in reality.

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have no issue at an individual level with any woman who would want an abortion because she wants to terminate her pregnancy, at any point for any reason.

Perhaps we should repeal that "14 years in jail if you do it" law?

What's that? We can't do that because of the 8th amendment? Hmmm...

Billy86 wrote: »

Luckily there's a simple solution for this that doesn't entail you putting anyone on your own private healthcare plan or any extremes being taken - make abortions available via public healthcare, which is something which you already contribute to.

that's not a solution, as in turn the systems we have will highly likely see less money as the belief will be that people can just have an abortion.

end of the road wrote: »

that's not a solution, as in turn the systems we have will highly likely see less money as the belief will be that people can just have an abortion.

Providing an abortion is cheaper than providing medical care throughout a pregnancy and paying childrens allowance for 18 years. your grasp of basic maths is poor.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps we should repeal that "14 years in jail if you do it" law?

What's that? We can't do that because of the 8th amendment? Hmmm...

I have no doubt you're aware that that is the maximum sentence for the crime for which it is imposed.

There's no need to be scaremongering anyone into believing that such a sentence is automatic upon conviction, or that the DPP would have any interest in pursuing a prosecution in the first place. It would depend entirely upon the circumstances of any given case, providing a complaint were made in the first place, and then any actions determined afterwards pursuant with any investigation being carried out.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Providing an abortion is cheaper than providing medical care throughout a pregnancy and paying childrens allowance for 18 years.

allegedly. all though with the likely hood that abortions would increase, it's likely it won't work out cheaper long term.
also, as it would be availible, the government would eventually begin to believe that because of it's availability, there is no need to put any sort of reasonable funding into the system in relation to children, meaning large scale funding reductions for children that do exist. just look at the wellfare system in britain, it's not just conservatism at play in it's slow reduction and failure.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Providing an abortion is cheaper than providing medical care throughout a pregnancy and paying childrens allowance for 18 years. your grasp of basic maths is poor.

Providing an abortion is cheaper than providing pregnancy care, but that's where any comparison ends. The person as an adult will likely pay more in tax over their lifetime and contribute more to the economy than their parents will ever be able to claim in child benefit.

kylith

So, a teenager who becomes pregnant in school/college, who would otherwise have gone on to a well paying job after finishing her degree, giving the children she would have planned later in life a good standard of living and good educational prospects now has to drop out of school because she can’t balance motherhood and education, leading to her taking lower paid jobs and providing a lower standard of living and fewer education prospects is somehow better for her social mobility?

I think you have something backwards there, Jack. Unless you support the raising of social welfare and the abolition of school/college fees, along with heavily subsidised childcare. Do you?

This post has been deleted.

end of the road wrote: »

allegedly. all though with the likely hood that abortions would increase, it's likely it won't work out cheaper long term.

How many dozen abortions do you think each woman will have? Because that is the number that would be required before we approach the cost of medical care and subsequent childrens allowance for a single child.

end of the road wrote: »

also, as it would be availible, the government would eventually begin to believe that because of it's availability, there is no need to put any sort of reasonable funding into the system in relation to children, meaning large scale funding reductions for children that do exist. just look at the wellfare system in britain, it's not just conservatism at play in it's slow reduction and failure.

Stupid scaremongering with nothing to back it up except bald assertions and i expect no better from you.

captbarnacles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have no doubt you're aware that that is the maximum sentence for the crime for which it is imposed.

There's no need to be scaremongering anyone into believing that such a sentence is automatic upon conviction, or that the DPP would have any interest in pursuing a prosecution in the first place. It would depend entirely upon the circumstances of any given case, providing a complaint were made in the first place, and then any actions determined afterwards pursuant with any investigation being carried out.

If a relative or friend of yours ordered pills on the internet and had an abortion and was subsequently charged what do you think would be an appropriate sentence?

This post has been deleted.

captbarnacles

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How many dozen abortions do you think each woman will have? Because that is the number that would be required before we approach the cost of medical care and subsequent childrens allowance for a single child.

Stupid scaremongering with nothing to back it up except bald assertions and i expect no better from you.

EOTR has only recently latched on this rubbish because Jack introduced it. There is no sign of it from him earlier in the thread. He'll give it up shortly as it is refuted.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Providing an abortion is cheaper than providing pregnancy care, but that's where any comparison ends. The person as an adult will likely pay more in tax over their lifetime and contribute more to the economy than their parents will ever be able to claim in child benefit.

Or they could end up spending their life on social welfare because they were born to a single mother who was forced to give birth to them and did poorly in life as a result.

captbarnacles wrote: »

EOTR has only recently latched on this rubbish because Jack introduced it. There is no sign of it from him earlier in the thread. He'll give it up shortly as it is refuted.

I can guarantee they wont. their posting history backs this up.

kylith wrote: »

So, a teenager who becomes pregnant in school/college, who would otherwise have gone on to a well paying job after finishing her degree, giving the children she would have planned later in life a good standard of living and good educational prospects now has to drop out of school because she can’t balance motherhood and education, leading to her taking lower paid jobs and providing a lower standard of living and fewer education prospects is somehow better for her social mobility?

I think you have something backwards there, Jack. Unless you support the raising of social welfare and the abolition of school/college fees, along with heavily subsidised childcare. Do you?

But that's you're assuming that she has to do all those things kylith, not me. ln my experience there's absolutely no reason why there should be any assumption of a pre-determined outcome for her. Let's imagine for a minute she would meet someone like you who might say to her "y'know what, you pursue your studies, finish your degree, do whatever it is you want to do and I'll make sure you have every opportunity to do it, and you can still raise your child if that's what you want to do!" Now things aren't all so doom and gloom as to her future prospects, are they?

FWIW btw I absolutely do not support the raising of social welfare, I would abolish it entirely if I thought it were possible. I don't support the abolition of school/college fees (but certainly I would put what fees are charged to better use, definitely a whole other thread there!), and I think we already touched on the subsidised childcare issue? Needless to say I would simply abolish it.