....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
smacl wrote: » Agreed, the authority that I'm preferring is the UN, which is the accepted authority with regards to human rights for most civilised countries.
Ideologically, it is secular based around democratic decision making and consensus. The authority you're comparing it to is the Catholic church, which is autocratic and regressive. The result you achieve by choosing world Catholicism over the UN is a theocracy with a long history of abuse of anyone that disagrees with it. It is evident that we no longer want or accept this ideology in this country, even though we have a substantial Catholic majority, as can be seen in the marriage equality referendum which won by a landslide against the explicit stated position of the Catholic church.
That the pregnant woman is person is a matter of fact. The notion that foetus is a person is a matter of questionable belief / conjecture.
The two cannot be reasonably equated in terms of human rights on that basis. There is no therefore.
The nimbyism as I see it is a pretence that by keeping abortion illegal in this country, pro-lifers have somehow defended their integrity and self-worth by keeping Ireland a 'good' country that is abortion free.
The truth of the matter is that abortion continues as it ever has, at serious unnecessary risk and cost to the women involved.
Worth remembering no one actually wants abortion, least of all a pregnant woman.
What we're dealing with here is a least worst option, and we should collectively be looking to reduce overall number of abortions through better sex education and affordable access to contraception and emergency contraception as required.
gallifreya wrote: » There can be equally as many reasons to have an abortion as there are to continue with pregnancies. These reasons are legion and cannot possibly be legislated for separately. No individual should want nor get to sit in judgment or in righteous superiority and decide which of those reasons are ‘legitimate’ and which are not - or indeed which is a genuine need for an abortion and which is a want. We should not get to define the exceptions. We can never stipulate exactly how or when a pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother, when an abortion has a ‘good or bad enough reason’ to define it or when circumstances are dire enough or a relationship is abusive enough to justify an abortion. That is for women to decide privately with regard to their own circumstances and I know none who ever made this decision with reckless abandon. This fear of what women’s reasons for abortions ‘may’ be and ‘why’ they might make such a decision is unsupportable, controlling and oppressive. The fact that it’s masked as a concern for the unborn does not make it less oppressive or judgmental. Why do some consider abortion more acceptable when women have suffered btw? If someone wants to contend that that foetus has rights, and call that foetus a person and a baby from conception, that’s up to them but even the state and constitution disagree with that position. You can believe that a 12 week old foetus is a separate person and this is can be debated to eternity. However, there’s no doubt that a woman is a person. And so the question is - at what point is a woman not a person? At what point does a woman lose the right to control her reproduction, make health decisions and to have bodily integrity? Does pregnancy from conception supersede the rights of a woman to make decisions about her future, her health, her body, her medical care? Currently, the constitution says it does which suppresses women’s rights inequitably in favour of the unborn - so an actual balance of rights is proposed for various reasons up to a 12 week limitation. This takes some (not all) of the current protections from the unborn and gives them to the woman – up to a limit. Abortion ‘on demand’, if you want to put it like that, is already here. It’s here in the form of thousands of women able to afford it travelling to the UK. It’s really here in the form of a pill that is being taken and will be taken by women without medical supervision risking their life, health and imprisonment. That is one of the reasons why the recommendation is for safety, accessibility and decriminalisation for any reason within a 12 week limit. Another is of course, because of the due process required for accused rapists. Is it possible for a Christian and society to support both women and the unborn by working towards making abortions unnecessary rather than illegal but until then, leaving the hard choices up to the women directly affected instead of trying to erase them from the equation entirely?
gallifreya wrote: » Abortion is only cruel if prevented in extreme circumstances - according to you? Fund it themselves? Hard pressed tax payer? Nobody has any control over how the government spends tax funds. I may not ever use the bridges, parks, transport systems, clinics, housing endeavours etc built and supported by taxes but I appreciate that the funds are used to benefit society in general - and women's health is part of that. So would you vote to repeal the 8th amendment as currently proposed if women had to fund abortions or pregnancy terminations for health reasons themselves?
smacl wrote: » Your logic is badly wrong there. As things stand in this country, we're already in the extreme polar position, to the extent that the UN has commented on us in relation to neglecting women's rights. By voting to keep the eighth you're voting to maintain an extreme and inhumane status quo. Pretending otherwise on the pretext of having an option that better suits your personal preference at some stage in the future is burying your head in the sand. There seems to be agreement on both sides here that whether or not a foetus at 12 weeks is or is not a person is a matter of personally held belief, whereas that a pregnant woman is a person is a matter of fact. On that basis, I find it morally reprehensible that those from the pro-life side would seek to dictate to a woman how she should behave based on their questionable beliefs. Pithy analogies to slavery, finger-wagging NIMBYisms and shameful shock tactics just add to this.
antiskeptic wrote: » You're effectively citing an ideology (or majority view from a multitude of differing ideologies) which happens to conform to your own as some kind of absolute authority? Isn't this simply authority of the majority? Pick another majority (e.g. world Catholicism) and you get a different result.
The pregnant woman a person is a matter of fact. And that fact stands there on it's own unless you begin to add therefore's onto it. Once you add a therefore (regarding how to approach the pregnancy), you immediately add a personal philosophy. Your therefore can't avoid dealing with the nature of whats in her womb.
The nimbyism merely holds that you cannot prevent someone from travelling. The question is what are we as a society to uphold in our society. We can't, and oughtn't dictate what another society do.
smacl wrote: » Your logic is badly wrong there.
As things stand in this country, we're already in the extreme polar position, to the extent that the UN has commented on us in relation to neglecting women's rights. By voting to keep the eighth you're voting to maintain an extreme and inhumane status quo.
There seems to be agreement on both sides here that whether or not a foetus at 12 weeks is or is not a person is a matter of personally held belief, whereas that a pregnant woman is a person is a matter of fact. On that basis, I find it morally reprehensible that those from the pro-life side would seek to dictate to a woman how she should behave based on their questionable beliefs.
Pithy analogies to slavery, finger-wagging NIMBYisms and shameful shock tactics just add to this.
Gerry T wrote: » Your twisting what is being said. The discussion is should abortions be allowed without a reason. Not all women will make considered decisions hence there needs to be some legislation. I don't agree with zero abortion as the line, I'm not at the polar ends but somewhere in the middle. But given the choice of having either polar position, I will vote not to repeal until a better choice is presented. This is not an attack at women, if a woman wants to do anything with her body I would say fire away. But I'm discussing the childs body.
end of the road wrote: » it would only be cruel if abortions in extreme circumstances were being prevented. as it's abortion on demand then it's not cruel, the current system is necessary to try and protect the life of the unborn and it is stopping some abortions. having people traveling to the uk insures that those people fund the abortion themselves rather then the hard-pressed tax payer as a whole having to do it. pro-life are not okay with people having abortions abroad but we have to recognise there is a right to travel and people are able under EU law to use services in other countries and we cannot stop them.
antiskeptic wrote: » But folk can special plead this gut instinct away for selfish reasons, when it comes to something as intrusive to personal goals as a having a child. To paraphrase that truest of observations (originally concerning livelihoods) "it's hard to get a woman to believe something when her personal fulfillment depends on her not believing it"
end of the road wrote: » that case is not relevant to the discussion of abortion on demand. it's completely different as the baby apparently wasn't going to live anyway.
david75 wrote: » The clinically dead corpse of a woman was kept on life support a few years back in the rotunda in Dublin because even though the baby was due any moment it wasn’t going to live even moments after birth. The mother was legally dead. The hospitals hands were legally bound and couldnt do anything. This was prior to Savitas situation. We need to let the medical professionals make decisions here. Not your morals or mine or anyone else’s.
david75 wrote: » We’re asking for the 8th I be repealed and finally for an Irish government to stand up and show some maturity through legislation that is fit for purpose and serves the needs of the women involved. We have an atrocious history with dealing and sorting out difficult issues. None of our TDS are educated or equipped to make even barely serviceable regulations on these matters. They’re hicks and upstarts from small towns with painfully small parties ah pump outlooks. Just look at the Hepatitis/infected blood scandal back in the 90s. Something I don’t understand. The pro life campaign are fine with women traveling for abortion to the uk. They just don’t want it happening here. This suggests they’re either fine with the abortion happening or they know the reality that by the time a woman or young girl finds out she’s pregnant she’ll be unable to get enough money together to go and see to her medical needs in the uk. So that’s both stupid and cruel no matter what way you look at it.
end of the road wrote: » i'm well aware technically the referendum isn't about abortion on demand. however the reality is abortion on demand is the main thing that will be the result of it, and that is why people are talking about that the most. if it was just about repealing the 8th then there would be lots of support for that including from pro-life supporters including myself.
david75 wrote: » These same people are running this campaign. These same people would want to change their tone and message.
Seems like they’ve hired outside PR to assist them with that. Where’s that money coming from again?
david75 wrote: » I’d disagree. The same people that positioned themselves as the moral superiority and mouthpieces of their campaign in marriage equality are the same ones positioning themselves here in this debate. Cora Sherlock Breda O Brien Paddy Manning that Everrt woman and her husband Keith Mills etc and of course, David Quinn. They oversaw a campaign using multiple fronts including mothers and fathers matter, in the deluded hope that Irish people are stupid enough to believe the nonsense they were coming out with. And the patronising and condescending and utterly false narrative they were pushing assumed we were all stupid and would buy it. Cos that’s what they do when the church says jump. These same people are running this campaign. These same people would want to change their tone and message. Seems like they’ve hired outside PR to assist them with that. Where’s that money coming from again? Ps. We aren’t having a referendum on abortion on demand. At all. You seem to either not have a full grasp of the facts involved or are confused and trying to assume other people are as confused as you. It’s not working.
end of the road wrote: » the marriage equality referendum was a very different beast. most people were in favour of, marriage equality, others didn't agree with it but were willing to vote for it because nobody would be harmed. repealing the 8th is very different due to the abortion debate, a lot of people don't agree with abortion on demand.
