NuMarvel wrote: » There is no proposal for "unlimited abortion" and people won't be able to get abortions on the grounds of gender or disability. How about we stick to the facts, okay?
Bob_Marley wrote: » Most telling of all under the proposed unlimited abortion, you'll now be able to terminate a child, whose heart starts beating at three weeks, merely because she is a female or disabled or is mixed race, or just doesn't suit. So much for female rights after all. How's that for a brave newspeak world.
NuMarvel wrote: » There's little point replying to my post if you're not actually going to address what I've said. Repealing the 8th doesn't breach human rights; keeping it does. It is as simple as that. When you've got a proper response to my points, let me know. Otherwise, I'm getting off this merry-go-round here, thanks.
J C wrote: » That is because of a totally one-sided view of Human rights ... which are deemed to reside 100% with the woman ... and 0% with her unborn child. Common Human decency demands that such a clearly inequitable idea be totally rejected, by all right-thinking people.
Bob_Marley wrote: » The right to human life for all unborn children is being removed from the constitution, no human rights are being added. You don't add human life rights by removing, ignoring and denying them at the point when human life is at its most vulnerable.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » Good man, Bob_Marley, the Lord is with you.
Bob_Marley wrote: » Most telling of all under the proposed unlimited abortion, you'll now be able to terminate a child, whose heart starts beating at three weeks, merely because she is a female or disabled or is mixed race, or just doesn't suit. How's that for a brave newspeak world.
J C wrote: » That is because of a totally one-sided view of Human rights ... which are deemed to reside 100% with the woman ... and 0% with her unborn child. Common Human decency demands that such a clearly inequitable idea be totally rejected, by all right-thinking people. Women correctly demand equality with men ... and then toxic femininsm turns around and demands to kill their unborn children with impunity. ... its a one-sided 'what yours is mine and what's mine is my own' kind of equality that they are talking about. ... you couldn't make it up !!! ... they correctly demand equality for themselves ... and refuse to grant equality to their defenseless, innocent unborn children!!
NuMarvel wrote: » I'll say it again because you seem to have missed my point the first time: Nobody's human rights are ignored, denied, or removed by repeal of the 8th. Access to abortion is NOT a breach of human rights. On the other hand, Ireland IS in breach of human rights because of our abortion laws, and we can't remedy that until we repeal the 8th. To use your turn of phrase, you don't enhance human rights for the unborn by actively ignoring and denying the rights of the woman. BUT if you want to insist the unborn has human rights, then I remind you we already put the freedom to travel and to access information ABOVE all of the unborn's rights. And if you don't object to that, which no one does, then there's no basis for treating bodily autonomy in the same way.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Why do you feel women should somehow be exempted from holding full bodily autonomy and human rights?
Bob_Marley wrote: » Again, there is not one human life and right involved, but two, the mother and her unborn child. You don't enhance human rights for anyone by actively trying to ignore, deny and remove the rights of that human life and ending their life when it is most defenceless.
NuMarvel wrote: » Leaving the 8th in our constitution breaches human rights. We know that from the Amanda Mellet and Siobhan Whelan cases. And repeal and legislating is the only way we can be sure we don't continue to breach them in the future. On the other hand, repealing and legislating as per the Committee's recommendations doesn't breach human rights. We know that no country in the world has been found to breach human rights by allowing access to abortion. But if you want to maintain that the unborn has human rights that must be recognised, I'd remind you that in our Constitution, ALL of the unborn's rights come second to the woman's freedoms to travel and to access information about abortion overseas. So if you're not objecting to those, I can't see how you can object to her bodily autonomy also being given the same status.
endacl wrote: » You still haven’t answered my question about **** in the confessional, by the way...
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » You are certainly NOT a Christian if you vote for abortion.
Bob_Marley wrote: » body autonomy for who? there's two human lives with rights involved not one. This referendum is about trying to remove human rights from the constitution, not adding them.
end of the road wrote: » abortion on demand is nothing to do with bodily autonomy and human rights. there is no human right to an abortion just because.
recedite wrote: » That's not saying much. Even getting out of bed in the morning entails more risk to life, than staying in bed, for both men and women.
J C wrote: » Direct deaths from induced abortion are rare (but not unknown). However, when total mortality rates for women who have had births, miscariages and abortions are compiled ... abortion is found to increase the total risk of death by about four fold in the first year after pregnancies that end in abortion, in comparison with birth. Quote:- "abortion critics have long contended that the statistics relied upon for maternal mortality calculations have been distorted and that the broader claim that "abortion is many times safer than childbirth" completely ignores high rates of other physical and psychological complications associated with abortion. Now a recent, unimpeachable study of pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland has shown that the risk of dying within a year after an abortion is several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth." Quote:- "the risk of death from suicide within the year of an abortion was more than seven times higher than the risk of suicide within a year of childbirth."http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html These are the negative effects of abortion on women ... and of course the mortality rate for their unborn children is practically 100%.
The hypothesis that women who undergo an abortion have worse mental health outcomes than those that don’t is at heart a scientific claim and can be tested as such. One recent study in Denmark charted the psychological health of 365,550 women, including 84,620 who’d had abortions. They found neither an increase in psychological damage, nor any elevated risk of suicide.Link
WhiteRoses wrote: » Abortion is everything to do with bodily autonomy. You already know this because I’ve seen many others explain why to you.
WhiteRoses wrote: » The whole point of the referendum is that not having a referendum violates human rights for women.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Abortion is everything to do with bodily autonomy. You already know this because I’ve seen many others explain why to you. The whole point of the referendum is that not having a referendum violates human rights for women.
WhiteRoses wrote: Why do you feel women should somehow be exempted from holding full bodily autonomy and human rights?
J C wrote: » Doesn't matter whether you are a Christian ... do you not you not share the basic Human ethic that nobody should kill except in extremis ? ... or do you believe that women are somehow exempted from such common descency ?
Delirium wrote: » And again, not Christian. I don't share your religious beliefs.
recedite wrote: » A well thought out submission. Unfortunately the "citizens assembly" seems to have ignored it. It will be interesting to see how the actual citizens behave in the voting booth. I have my doubts about whether the CA was a reasonable representative of the general public at all (as opposed to a bunch of mainly left wing activists with too much time on their hands).
NuMarvel wrote: » Public opinion and the CA seem in line with each other when it comes to changing the constitution and the 12 week limit. In the CA, 13% were opposed to any constitutional change, and polls show that 15% of the public share the same opinion. And for the 12 week limit, 64% of CA attendees supported this, and polls since then put public support at 65%. I haven't looked at all the Committee votes, but I know that only 15% of the members favoured retention of the 8th, so there's consistency across the board on that aspect.
Delirium wrote: » Abortion, particularly if it's early in the pregnancy, has less health risks for the woman compared to pregnancy.Source So by not allowing a woman to choose to have an abortion her life is placed in more danger by a factor over 10 based on quoted stats. If you're concerned about a pregnant womans health, it's seem illogical to oppose repealing the eighth.
