The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

pleas advice wrote: »

But that doesn't change the fact that somewhere between a third and a half of the population have, as you say, 'a sincerely held belief that an embryo is a tiny human and therefore entitled to the same rights as a baby or adult'

How many of these people support abortion in cases of rape or incest?

In the Citizens assembly, 84% support it for Rape, which suggests that nowhere near a third of people think a fetus is a little live baby.

pleas advice wrote: »

Well I mean, for me pro life means anti-(medically unnecessary) abortion.

I mean, it's the ending of a human life they have a problem with, I guess.
That shouldn't be anyone's decision *to* make

That decision is made by at least a dozen women in Ireland every day and pro lifers, or more specifically, pro lifers who oppose change, don't say anything about that. It seems that their issue isn't the ending of a human life, but that it would no longer happen in secret or abroad.

That can't be regarded as being pro life, by any stretch of the term.

pleas advice wrote: »

Red herring, or some other logical fallacy

Excellent riposte, or some other thing like an idiotic non sequitur.

pleas advice wrote: »

We'll see after the referendum, I suppose.

I'm unsure if this is a response to my post. If it was, we don't need to wait until after the referendum. You've stated something was a fact, so there shouldn't be any difficulty providing evidence of it now.

Edward M wrote: »

But you listed reasons for abortion?
Why not be so blunt as to say why should any woman have to have any reason for abortion?

To be honest, that is a matter between a woman and her doctor, as to whether she has any reason, good or bad, for an abortion. It is none of your business and none of mine.

Like any medical procedure, elective or not, or any medication, preventative or curative, there are risks and side-effects. A woman's GP is the best person to help her decide whether the abortion pill or an abortion are the best medical treatment for her, taking account of her wishes and her medical condition.

The only reason, the State (as in you and I) need to intervene is to regulate the provision of abortion. From a practical point of view, modern abortion pills are such that there is little point in prohibiting abortion for any reason up to 10-12 weeks. A GP prescription should be all that is needed for the pill.

A later abortion involves a medical procedure and an assessment by a specialist before any medical procedures is obviously appropriate hence the legislation should require this. Even a liposuction requires some level of expert medical approval.

Where we need to intervene and regulate is at the stage where the unborn is viable because the unborn do have rights too. We can play it safe and have no abortions after 18 weeks, or adopt a riskier position (for the unborn, but better for the mother's choice) and allow abortion up to 24 weeks. I am interested in hearing medical opinion on where this cut-off should be. After that, it is difficult to justify, other than in cases of FFA.

Now I know there are some who oppose any limit. To them, I would just say that every right is limited, every right tends to clash with another right, and while a woman's right to bodily integrity and right to choose are very important, hence we need to allow abortion, at some stage of the pregnancy the right to life of the unborn will trump the right to choose.

JDD wrote: »

There's never been any push to remove the right to travel for an abortion.

600,000+ people voted against travel, but they lost. Now they pretend that of course travel is cool, because of all sorts of issues, but that isn't what the pro-life crew said at the time.

But having lost, they fall back to defend the next ditch. They are no more going to try and reban travel than anyone is going to try and reban divorce or same sex marriage. I think they know they will lose eventually, they are fighting a rearguard action to delay losing as long as possible.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've actually never seen a pro-lifer openly argue that there are reasons for allowing women to travel for abortions. I mean, some must hold that view clearly, and you can only assume that it is a "not in my backyard" reaction. But I wonder about those who actually voted for the 8th amendment, yet voted against the amendment to restrict the right to travel, ever really think deeply about their motivations for doing so.

JDD wrote: »

Ah c'mon now. You could say you miscarried. You don't have to show any proof of that. I mean at the risk of being graphic, you could miscarry up to 12 weeks into the toilet. No state in reality would be asking you to bring home evidence of the blood or foetus. And taking this to the nth degree, if you did have to do so, that would be easily done at the termination clinic. You couldn't police it.

The risk would be that if you travelled with another person, and you fell out with them, they could go to the police to report you after the fact. If the gardai had to investigate the matter, they could probably prove that you made an appointment with a clinic through your emails or phone records.

The problem is there is so much misinformation out there, and people are so ignorant to actual facts, that there would actually be a minority who would want to impose such rules.

This week I had a pro life person on another thread tell me that he knew loads of people who held funerals for pregnancies lost pre 12 weeks with full burials and headstones and that the abortion referendum was an insult those families who had lost pregnancies.
I was told I was a liar that there is no ‘body’ to bury and that stating an early miscarriage is similar to a heavy period is very disrespectful.

When you’re arguing with that kind of logic there’s no hope.
These are the types of people who actually would want to see evidence of the miscarriage to prove no abortion took place.
While they are in a minority, they unfortunately certainly exist.

It would be very hard to prosecute women who go abroad

But you can prosecute those who import pills so why are the antis not seeking justice for the "murder" of these "children"

Why aren't they up in arms about the loss of embryos in fertility clinics here?

Is it because they are just a bunch of complete wasters who couldn't care less about anything other than control?