swampgas wrote: » You do realise that you are saying that a woman who wants an abortion should have the baby because that's what feels right to you[/ Edward M wrote: » Many women have unwanted pregnancies, most just get on with it though. Inconvenience is a poor reason for aborting IMO. ]? Your feelings are your own and you should not disown them, but please don't extrapolate to everyone else that they should feel the same way. What about what feels right to her? Why should your feelings have such a say over what happens to her life? Babies and children are wonderful when they are wanted. But an unwanted pregnancy is often a terrible thing, and thinking that women who really don't want to continue a pregnancy can be forced to "get on with it" is misguided and more cruel than you seem to imagine.
Edward M wrote: » Many women have unwanted pregnancies, most just get on with it though. Inconvenience is a poor reason for aborting IMO.
joey1111 wrote: » ..I'd LOVE to listen to your opinion if you spent a number of years minding all of your children on your own 24/7, even one of them. But reading your blasé opinion is laughable to say the least.
Edward M wrote: » You see again with the misquoting or misinterpretation.I said several times, this will be the last, twist it any way you want after this, I never said they "should" or even "get on with it" on its own. My original statement said that most women just get on with it. An example of no posting a sentence in full context is this from your post, tell me what someone would think of your post if I quoted only this bit? "a woman who wants an abortion should have the baby".
What can I say, if a normal healthy woman, with a normal healthy pregnancy presents to a doctor and no good medical grounds can be found for abortion then she should have the baby IMO. Its tough I know to accept that I can feel like I do, but that's the way I feel.
Edward M wrote: » What can I say, if a normal healthy woman, with a normal healthy pregnancy presents to a doctor and no good medical grounds can be found for abortion then she should have the baby IMO. Its tough I know to accept that I can feel like I do, but that's the way I feel. All I can say of men is i know some who have abdicated their responsibility as a parent both of babies and of older children also, scumbags if you want to refer to them as such. I also know women who have exploited men with their children and rights after relationship breakdowns too. Speaking for myself, I have never shirked a responsibility towards any of my children or their mothers, I love them all dearly and if they found themselves in a situation on either side of this debate I would do my utmost to support them in their decision also. If my son shirked his responsibility I would gladly support the girl in any decision she would make, and my daughters in any they would make also. Hopefully that will never arise, I have a grandchild on the way, looking forward to that in April.
Edward M wrote: » You know nothing of me joey, your ignorance of my situation is laughable in its presumption of how my children were reared.
applehunter wrote: » From my perspective the more Kate O'Connell speaks on the issue the better. She is hitting close to 10 on my thundering-bitchometer.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » That says more about you than Kate O Connell
Akrasia wrote: » There is a moral difference between not stopping someone from having an abortion. And actively voting to make it legal.
Calina wrote: » You are right. In one case you are basically enabling it to be done in as safe a manner as possible. In the other, not necessarily. Being ambivalent about illegal abortion and not voting to make it legal is being ambivalent about the health and safety of women.
Akrasia wrote: » If you can't reconcile the conflict within you, where you care both for the unborn, and also for the welfare of women, then abstaining is a legitimate option.
thee glitz wrote: » That's a clear vote no position. I'd go against a straight repeal of the 8th with no guarantees, and force a more creative solution to be found.
Bannasidhe wrote: » M'thinks that particular can has run out of road upon which to be kicked down.
As for 'creative solution' - what do you have in mind? What would it take for you to vote Yes to repeal?
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Remember the Seanad referendum. I'm sure a lot of the yes voters wanted it significantly reformed. Do you think they're going to get another referendum offering that choice?
thee glitz wrote: » Not at all - I don't that it has even been discussed much. As saving women's live is of the utmost importance to yourself and seemingly many, I'm a little disappointed that others aren't putting forward any suggestions. This shows a lack of interest in or unwillingness to separate issues. The constitution could protect the lives of the unborn to the extent that the continued pregnancy doesn't unduly harm the mother. There are several so called special circumstance cases and people will have different ideas on them. I'd vote to repeal the 8th if it was required to ensure women got necessary treatments, including abortion in the case of FFA, while unborn lives otherwise remained protected.
thee glitz wrote: » If they voted to abolish the Seanad, they clearly didn't care about reform. Michael McDowell campaigns for reform, and FG are supposedly committed to it, but it's slow coming about. There never was a Reform option to vote for. Similar could happen with the referendum on the 8th.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » The comparison I am drawing is with people who voted to retain the Seanad but still wanted it significantly reformed. You are saying that people who favour limited liberalisation of abortion will "force a more creative solution to be found" by voting down repeal. I am pointing out that nothing analogous happened when seanad abolition was defeated, nor was ever likely to. If this referendum is defeated, any change to abortion law is off the agenda for several years, I would say at least ten.
thee glitz wrote: » In the case of a straight repeal of 8th amendment failing, there would be pressure from those seeking limited change to still get that.
thee glitz wrote: » Reforming the Seanad doesn't require a referendum, and could / should have happened anyway. Instead of doing this the government went for a power grab, which hilariously failed. .
Bannasidhe wrote: » I'm not the one calling for 'creative thinking'. I have been clear that I am happy with the recommendation of the Citizen's Assemby.
You are the one who wants creativity. You are the one against repeal so how about you answer the question asked and not deflect.
Bannasidhe wrote: » thee glitz wrote: » Reforming the Seanad doesn't require a referendum, and could / should have happened anyway. Instead of doing this the government went for a power grab, which hilariously failed. . Yes it does -changes would need to be made to Articles 18 and 19. I agree about the power grab.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Yes it does -changes would need to be made to Articles 18 and 19. I agree about the power grab.
thee glitz wrote: » That's fair enough - I guess my points could apply to them too. You've just quoted my answers, both of them. This after twice supposedly not understanding my simple language. You are the one stressing the importance of women's health issues, going so far as to have a coniption over literally nothing. What you're saying is that you're not interested in women's health, or even so-called special cases, to any extent greater than allowing abortion on demand. So if this referendum fails because it turns out that there are actually quite a lot of pro-lifers and moderates among us, with no in-between option to vote for, will you be able to explain to mothers experiencing serious health problems and FFA pregnancies why they're not so special?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Oh do stop with the passive aggressive, Honestly, conniption indeed. Perhaps you could debate without the sniping. That would be ...adult.
Your answer wasn't a solution and it certainly wasn't creative. It was a series of qualifications and caveats. The pro-life version of hard Brexit with the EU trimmings we like. And the a bit of buck passing.
How are medics meant to determine 'undue harm'? Who decides what 'special circumstances' apply? What is the criteria?
Why is it pregnant women are only protected from 'undue' harm? Is due harm ok then?
thee glitz wrote: » Ah it was a bit... and that's ok. Buck passing maybe, to legislators / lawyers, people who are specifically trained to do these things. I think that should be allowed. How's that hard Brexit going anyway..? With their years and years of training and experience, as guided by legislation. The government, within the bounds of the constitution. Undue, as in unwarranted, protecting the lives of the unborn where doing so doesn't pose a significant serious risk to the mother. Due harm isn't a thing, but the acceptability of risks are assessed the whole time.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » I think the government will rule out limited reform as part of the campaign to secure complete repeal. The pitch will be "If you favour any liberalisation of abortion law, this will be your only chance for many years."
Bannasidhe wrote: » You have an amazing faith in the abilities of legislators. That they could frame legislation of both complexity and nuance that not only clearly defines what constitutes 'a serious significant risk' but also manages to clarify in such a way that there is no doubt what an 'extreme circumstance' is... well, it beggers belief that such a thing exists - who are these paragons of foresight and legislative rectitude? They must be from a different gene pool than the legislators of 30 odd years ago who made a complete hames of it - and they cannot possibly be the same ones responsible for the Irish water debacle. As for lawyers = find me two and I'll find you two different legal opinions.
Tell me - how are these paragons going to deal with that pesky little pill?
An awful lot of them seem to have taken a pragmatic approach and decided that they have no choice in the circumstances but to accept that there will be abortion on demand up to a set gestation time limit, Still have faith in the politicians?
thee glitz wrote: » I'm not saying it would be easy (maybe it would?), but that I don't know. Before taking such a serious step as legalising abortion on demand, it should be discovered if people actually want it, and at at a level at least as possible tied to other situations. Not sure what you're referring to here They're pre-empting the result of a referendum, one on a very contentious issue? Lazy, undemocratic and irresponsible. I've very little faith in politicians other than in their interest to be re-elected, certainly not by default but some earn it. I presume that they too are able to tell women who need abortions / treatments when not allowable why they're not so special.
thee glitz wrote: » Before taking such a serious step as legalising abortion on demand, it should be discovered if people actually want it
