....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gerry T wrote: » It's not about what I think about women. My question is, if you think women having an abortion because it affects the social life/finances etc...is not a valid reason for an abortion then you should vote against repeal. Unless of course you can satisfy yourself that 100% of women wouldn't do that. A vote to repeal allows women to abort for any and all reasons. What should be done is look to change legislation so that as a society we agree under what circumstances an abortion can be allowed. Your comment suggests that women wouldn't have an abortion for a frivolous reason, so this approach should sit well with you
end of the road wrote: » they are wrong. abortion on demand isn't needed in ireland, abortion in extreme circumstances is needed in ireland.
WhiteRoses wrote: » So when it comes down to it, its clear you don't trust women.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I'm ok with a woman having an abortion for any reason necessary. What may be frivolous to one woman, may be life altering to another. Therefore I trust each woman to make the best decision for herself. After all, who am I to judge another person for what they can or cannot cope with?
WhiteRoses wrote: » And for what its worth, to play devils advocate, if a woman was seeking an abortion for a frivolous reason, do you really think that type of person should be trusted with the responsibility of raising another human? Do you really think someone who would want to abort for a nonsensical reason without giving it any kind of consideration is the kind of person who would make a good, loving, stable, parent?
WhiteRoses wrote: » Or are you just keen on punishing the woman to a fate she doesn't want? I have a feeling its the latter.
end of the road wrote: » being against abortion on demand doesn't equal not trusting women. suggesting otherwise is nonsense with no basis in fact and reality. we have a right to judge someone when their actions harm others. there are 2 options. having a child makes her grow up, or social services get involved if she isn't raising it properly. and again you would be wrong. not wanting abortion on demand to be availible doesn't equal wanting to punish women. suggesting otherwise is nonsense with no basis in reality or fact.
david75 wrote: » Down syndrome Ireland have issued a statement admonishing the Love Both pro life group for using images of DS kids in their marketing materials for the referendum.
It is an appalling tactic to use images of these kids in this manner. Distressing to them and their families.
antiskeptic wrote: » So what? DS Ireland could take the same view of the foetus that pro-choice take. Their interest might be in representing DS kids that are born, not DS potential kids. What possible distress would using such images cause anyone (presuming the images copyright free / used with consent by the parents of the kids? Bringing home the fact that these kids would be less likely to have been born in a eased abortion environment is a reasonable point to make.
antiskeptic wrote: » That's too broad a brush stroke. You accept what you accept and don't what you don't. They are not an authority on anything, other than insofar as you're prepared to accept them thus. You're also broad brush stroking "civilised countries" to mean every member of that civilised country.
I was just making the point that your authority by majority is just that. That you have reasons to pick one majority over another is your affair. But it's not an overwhelming argument. I'm no fan of the Catholic church - I was just making the argument from majority point.
As is the notion that the person isn't a person: questionable belief/conjecture applies equally there. Which means you're left with the fact a pregnant woman is a person. No one is arguing about that. You can't do much with the statement "it's a fact a pregnant woman is a person". You have to add something to the statement it to make some other point. See below. You've just added something to the fact the pregnant women is a person. You've added the foetus into the equation. And seem to be making factual statements about the foetus.
If someone wants to travel for an abortion that is their concern. In the event that society deems the unborn protected from abortion.
We're all dealing from our philosophical deck at the end of the day. We ought recognise that, see that our philopsophies will never meet, and do what we think best to have our particular philosophy hold sway in the society we live in. That's democracy.
