The Citizens Assembly recommended that termination of pregnancy should be lawful, up to 22 weeks gestation, in cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth without gestational limit.
J C wrote: » I do realise that, and I have never said otherwise ... but they're not just any old recommendations from any old source. The CA was set up by the Government to make recommendations for implementation by government.
The government can strategically water down the recommendations of the CA ... like they have done currently on abortion ... in order to get the 8th repealed 'without frightening the horses' ... and having the people reject the whole thing.
... but there will be nothing to stop the government revisiting the CA recommendartions, if the 8th is repealed ... and implementing all of the CA recommendations. In this regard the CA recommendations are practicallly identical to the current English abortion law ... and the cry that no woman should have to go to England for an abortion, will logically lead to a harmonisation of Irish abortion law with English abortion law, if the 8th is repealed ... and the CA recommendations provide a 'roadmap' and 'political cover' for doing precisely this.
J C wrote: » It also means that there is no gestational limit in cases of foetal abnormality, where the unborn child will go on living after birth i.e non-fatal foetal abnormality. The reason seems to be that fatal foetal abnormality has no gestational limit proposed by the CA, while normal pregnancies have a 22 week limit proposed ... but this is extended to no gestational limit for non-fatal foetal abnormality as well. Anyway, this is the clear view of the Oireachtas Committee on what the Citizens Assembly has recommended ... it is not my interpretaion of it. So I haven't lied ... I have merely correctly quoted what the Oireachtas Committe has said about the Citizens Assembly recomendations. ... and I would ask that the unfounded allegation of lying against me be withdrawn. Very basic civil behaviour actually. ... and in future, I would suggest that where somebody thinks that another poster has erred the error should be pointed out without resorting to the un-parliamentary ad hominem of accusing the poster of lying.
Delirium wrote: » Equally there will be nothing stopping the government from introducing stricter abortion laws should the laws be revisited.
J C wrote: » You are presenting a false 'hobsons choice' whereby you claim we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.Generically engineering children is a moral (and physical) abomination. The production of genetically engineered food is banned by law in the EU ... but not genetially engineered Humans, apparently. It all fits into the mindset that gives rights to aniamals that are not granted to unborn Humans. If somebody is at serious risk of producing a severely disabled child they have several morally legitimate options, including not having children at all or adopting children ... or even adopting somebody else's frozen embryo.Creating humans with three parents is just the kind of 'frankenstein' meddling that makes people seriously distrust scientists ... and demand that their more outrageous proposals be curbed.
smacl wrote: » I'm not troubled at all, quite the reverse actually. That people are responsible enough to only have children when they want to have children is a great piece of social progress that has happened in recent decades. I think abortion should be minimised on the basis that it is traumatic for the woman involved and should only be necessary in exceptional cases. No one ever wants an abortion, but nor should a woman ever have to bear a child against her will for whatever reason she chooses.
smacl wrote: » You do realise we live in a world where in excess of 3 million children die of starvation each year and if existing population trends continue, it is probable we will face a larger global food crisis?
smacl wrote: » The decision to only have children that you want and can reasonably hope to look after properly is entirely virtuous in my opinion and should be applauded.
smacl wrote: » Abortion is already tough enough for the women involved, stigmatising it and putting up barriers against it is in my opinion shameful.
Delirium wrote: » And the committee has rejected the recommendation of the 22-week limit for on request and the no limits on foetal abnormalities where the unborn will go on living after birth. What is the relevance of these rejected recommendations with regard to the proposed 12 week limit on request?
end of the road wrote: » nobody is being forced to bear children, they just aren't allowed to kill the unborn within the state.
oh dear. resorting to starving children and a possible food crisis as an argument to justify the killing of the unborn on demand. come on now. this is ridiculous. you can't seriously think anyone would listen to this nonsense? you're looking for problems to have abortion on demand as the solution, when it isn't the solution.
if one has an abortion outside medically necessary circumstances, they have to except there is going to be a consiquence to that, people openly disagreeing with their decisian. we stigmatize and try to put up barriers against the taking of life already via the laws in our country, and the unborn are included in that, unless it is absolutely medically necessary, for which one should be exempt from criticism.
smacl wrote: » By that definition, given pregnant women are people, you're ok for abortions to happen outside the state. Pretty much defines NIMBYism.
smacl wrote: » Simple truth is we don't need more people on this planet, we need fewer.
smacl wrote: » People should have children when and if they want them in this day and age, not through happenstance.
smacl wrote: » Only when bigots decide to act the bully when they realise that other people don't live their lives according to the same ultra-conservative dogma. Luckily the days where this type of nonsense is socially acceptable are becoming fewer.
end of the road wrote: » i'm not okay with it, but the reality is we cannot stop people who want abortions from traveling outside the state without effecting other people. other people should not be effected.
simple truth is we do not get to decide how many people should live on this earth, and we do not get to kill others in the name of population control. you are finding a potential problem for which to have abortion on demand as the solution, when it is not the solution and never will be.
not at all. people being condemned for taking human life is a fact of life and society. whether it be the killing of the unborn,, new born or even adults. nothing bigoted about it. i certainly don't live by ultra-conservative dogma, far from it, i'm the complete opposite to a conservative. however if it's not okay to take a life once it's born, and it's okay to condemn those who take that life, it's not okay to take that life before it's born unless it's for medically necessary reasons, and it's okay to condemn those who kill the unborn outside medically necessary reasons.
smacl wrote: » If we can't stop it, why force women to travel abroad to avail of it or use dangerous abortifacients to do it in an unsupervised environment while risking their own health. It seems like you're willing to jeopardise their lives to protect your moral values.
smacl wrote: » I fully accept that your opinion is that a foetus in the womb constitutes a human life or even a person, but do you agree that other people do not share that opinion? If so, why exactly are you right and they wrong?
smacl wrote: » If you agree that we should procreate by choice, of course we have ultimate control of the size of our population. The alternative is looking to global warfare or large scale epidemics to control the size of our population. Tough choices, but necessary ones.
smacl wrote: » As I've said before in numerous occasions on this thread, abortion should always be exceptional. I know a few women who've been through it, and it is more than traumatic enough without any additional finger wagging from puritans who for the most part will never have to face it.
smacl wrote: » Nope, condemning others for making hard decisions that you'll never have to make is entirely bigoted and rather miserable. For those that claim to care about life there are so many living out there that need and would dearly love some of that care it is shocking. Forcing women to have babies that they don't want will only add to that cohort.
osarusan wrote: » The sentence from Item 2.32 actually doesn't make sense to me: This makes sense to me: The Citizens Assembly recommended that termination of pregnancy should be lawful, up to 22 weeks gestation, in cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth. without gestational limit. but as it is written, I don't think makes sense. The last 3 words don't belong there. They contradict the mention of a 22-week limit earlier in the same sentence.
The Citizens Assembly recommended that termination of pregnancy should be lawful, up to 22 weeks gestation, in cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth. without gestational limit.
Peregrinus wrote: » All counties were represented. Demographics by age, gender and social class were represented. Other demographics were represented only coincidentally. The representation was not "democratic".
Peregrinus wrote: » Who else has the expertise and experience in selecting representative samples of the population, if not polling companies? The particular polling company which got the gig was chosen through a public tender process. It's not true to say that they did the job "without any oversight"; they were overseen by Ms. Justice Laffoy.
Delirium wrote: » That's correct. That's what recommendations are.
Delirium wrote: » That's right, the government can ignore recommendations they disagree with or they view to be a hard-sell.
recedite wrote: » Not in this country. In fact, the problem in nearly all western developed countries is negative birth rates and aging populations, with a predicted pensions time bomb problem. Unless of course, we decide to import the population replacements instead of reproducing ourselves. Eventually we can become an idiocracy
recedite wrote: » I agree, it is nonsense. Its probably a mistake in the text. Just goes to show what a pi$$ poor report it is.
frag420 wrote: » I am not presenting anything, just asking your thoughts on something! So with respect to the part in bold above, are you saying that that child should not have equal standing in the eyes of the law as a child that was conceived the natural way? As for not having children, are we not meant to try to procreate, is that not why we have sex in the eyes of the Christian church? Are you happy with someone adopting someone else's embryo and having it artificially inseminated to produce a child?
frag420 wrote: » As for the second part in bold, do you trust scientists to come up with cures for diseases and create medicines? Do you only distrust them when it goes against your religious views and beliefs even if it is for the betterment of mankind (eradication of deadly diseases)
J C wrote: » ... but that is not how it will play out if the 8th is repealed.
It is as certain as night follows day that the government will revisit the CA recommendartions, if the 8th is repealed ... and they will implement all of the CA recommendations. The reason for this is that the CA recommendations are practically identical to the current English abortion law ... and the cry that no woman should have to go to England for an abortion, will logically lead to the complete harmonisation of Irish abortion law with English abortion law, if the 8th is repealed. Otherwise women will still have to go to England for abortions outside 12 weeks ... and that will become politically impossible to resist if the 8th is repealed. The question will be asked as to why women still have to go to England for abortions after the 8th has been repealed ... and the answer will very quickly be the complete harmonisation of Irish abortion law with English law. The CA recommendations provide a 'roadmap' and 'political cover' for doing precisely this. ... and you would need to be extremely gullible to believe otherwise, if the 8th is repealed. ... whichever side of the abortion issue, you stand on.
Delirium wrote: » Surely if you have the courage of your convictions, you would believe somewhat that it's a matter of time before more people move to a pro-life position? Do you not believe that pro-life arguments can convince people?
J C wrote: » I have checked the CA report and you are correct ... it is a mistake in the text of Oireachtas Report of the CA Report ... The CA voted 69% for no gestational age limit for fatal foetal abnormality ... while only 38% voted for no gestational age limit for non-fatal foetal abnormality. However, English abortion law doesn't differentiate between fatal and non-fatal foetal abnormality ... abortion for both reasons may be carried out without gestational limit. So an Irish woman seeking a late term abortion for non-fatal foetal abnormality has to travel to England for such an abortion, unless Irish law is harmonised with English law on this issue.We need to remember that Irish abortion law will have to be identical to English law, so that Irish women don't need to travel to England for any type of abortion ... because this is the main reason being cited for the repeal of the 8th, in the first place.
david75 wrote: » Ps Is the constant bolding of texts really nauseating to anyone else? We can read. Are you that dismissive that you have to consistently presume to talk down to people in bullet points in order to make your point?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Sorry? Do you have evidence for this ludicrous claim or is it just you spouting nonsense yet again?
david75 wrote: » Does a single pro lifer in this thread really believe waffling and misleading and browbeating people helps their cause? Would your energy not be better spent knocking on doors and taking part in the campaign? With your easily accessible and not at all condescending and insulting style you would surely bring many voters to your side.
smacl wrote: » Not in our back yard? Do you honestly believe the solution to an increasingly large ageing population is to create a larger still younger population to support them? Pray tell what happens when that younger population when they grow older and where this sequence endds?
“We are very close to the threshold of non-renewal where the people dying are not replaced by new-borns. That means we are a dying country,” Health Minister Beatrice Lorenzin said. “This situation has enormous implications for every sector: the economy, society, health, pensions, just to give a few examples,” Lorenzin said. “We need a wake-up call and a real change of culture to turn the trend around in the coming years,” added the minister. Developed countries the world over are counting the costs of an ageing population, such as rising pension payouts and healthcare costs, but Italy, mired in its third recession in six years, is particularly vulnerable.
recedite wrote: » Not sure what your point is here. Young people become old people and eventually they die. Ideally a society would have a stable population, ie as many being born every year as are dying. You introduced this red herring into the debate that having children was somehow irresponsible. Claiming the dangers of famine or some such nonsense. I pointed out that the real problem for Ireland, as in most developed countries, is that too many people are opting out from having children. Having a negative birth rate poses a real problem for the future of any society. Here in Ireland we may not be very far behind Italy.. They are now paying out a baby bonus in a bid to stem the decline.
smacl wrote: » Could you point out where I said the section highlighted, not seeing it? That Italy has a declining population and an immigration crisis doesn't suggest a shortage of people to me so much as a failure to integrate.
smacl wrote: » The whole Christian idea of 'go forth and multiply' is finally being reined in as the dangerous anachronistic ideal that it is when applied to a modern context. You do realise we live in a world where in excess of 3 million children die of starvation each year and if existing population trends continue, it is probable we will face a larger global food crisis?
smacl wrote: » Coming back to abortion, do you seriously believe that forcing women to have unwanted children will be of net benefit to our society? That we should force woman to have more children because we're running out of kids? Seriously? In case you haven't noticed, we have a homeless crisis in this country.
recedite wrote: » Europe and the traditional christian countries are in no danger of starvation or over-reproduction. There are other regions in the world, many of them islamic, and often referred to as third world countries, where they "go forth and multiply" way beyond the resources of those countries.
Your idea that the Irish (and all Europeans) should abort their own children and then open their borders so that they can accommodate these third world populations is unsustainable. In the end, Europe would become the third world. That is not integration, its colonisation.
Your philosophy seems to be in line with George Soros, man of the dodgy donations.
You're a great fella for conflating different issues. The people who sleep on the streets do so mainly because they have problems with drug and alcohol addiction. That's a completely different issue to population stability. We have overpriced housing and rents. That's yet another issue.
We also have Irish couples scouring the world looking for babies to adopt; surely that is more relevant? Nobody is forcing women to become pregnant, except maybe rapists, and no I do not condone that. If I was in charge, I'd have them forcibly castrated.
smacl wrote: » Nice, a ball for a ball so to speak. Maybe you've got more in common with the Muslims than you're letting on
smacl wrote: » And which social stratum exactly do you think unwanted babies will find themselves growing up in, if not the most disadvantaged?
recedite wrote: » Adopted children rarely if ever complain that their upbringing was a disadvantage to them.
Bob_Marley wrote: » I've yet to hear one claim they should have killed as an unborn child instead.
