The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

sondagefaux · 21-02-2018 07:57PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Here is the link again:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

Khazan: And where is the support for this practice coming from?

Shell-Duncan: ...If we look at the data across Africa, the support for the practice is stronger among women than among men.

You seem to have missed this bit:

Khazan: Do you think it’s a global-health imperative that we work to stop this?

Shell-Duncan: There's no question this is a global-health issue. In the U.S., adult women are capable of giving consent for surgical procedures. But what would it take to get a woman in an African country to the same position of being able to give consent? Social pressures [in the nations that practice FGC] are so strong that no woman could ever opt out. Everybody would come down on her. That’s the problem. Why can we give consent and they can’t?

2wsxcde3 · 21-02-2018 07:57PM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So....your evidence for women wanting to get FGM (or FGC, as they call it) is from cultures that have highly patriarchal societies that still, for the most part, view women as objects and breeders? Wow, much evidence, such persuasion! :rolleyes:

We live in a patriarchal society. Just look at Dail Eireann. So, do you support these womens right to choose to have FGM done to them? It's kind of shameful we are making women travel abroad to other countries to have this done, making them feel like criminals.

sondagefaux · 21-02-2018 07:59PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Here is the link again:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

Khazan: And where is the support for this practice coming from?

Shell-Duncan: ...But when you talk to people on the ground, you also hear people talking about the idea that it’s women’s business. As in, it’s for women to decide this. If we look at the data across Africa, the support for the practice is stronger among women than among men.

I don't believe people should just be able to choose whatever they want to do. These women in support of this practice are perpetuating the problem in my opinion. That's why i don't agree with their support if it.

You also seem to have missed this bit:

Khazan: I also read that in surveys, large numbers of women and men no longer favor the practice, but they have their daughters cut regardless. Why do they keep doing it?

Shell-Duncan: This is not an individual behavior. For example, if I decide I want to lose weight, and that I'm going to start exercising on a daily basis, I can decide that all by myself. If I decide I don't want to circumcise my daughter, that’s not an individual behavior. I would have to answer to my husband, to my mother-in-law, my mother-in-law would have to answer to her friends throughout the community, my father-in-law would have to answer to people in the community, so there's societal pressure. So understanding what is a collective decision versus individual is really important. You can go and tell an individual mother what the health risks are and she can believe you, but it doesn’t mean, first of all, that she has the power to make that decision, or even that she has the authority to impart that information to her mother-in-law and other senior people in the society who are the decision-makers. Who wants to be the first one to change? Who wants to be the odd man out?
Khazan: What seems like an eradication strategy that might work, given those pressures?
Shell-Duncan: What we're coming to realize is that programs that target individual mothers are completely ineffective. Mothers are not solely in charge of the decisions for their daughters. We need to be targeting people who are in the extended family, and we know that we need to figure out who are the figures of authority in these families, and who are the influences on them in the community. We need to do male elders, but also female elders.

mrkiscool2 · 21-02-2018 08:02PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

We live in a patriarchal society. Just look at Dail Eireann. So, do you support these womens right to choose to have FGM done to them? It's kind of shameful we are making women travel abroad to other countries to have this done, making them feel like criminals.

We live in a society that is still feeling the after effects of patriarchy but is not in and of itself patriarchal. Even if you want to argue that it is patriarchal, it is in noway as patriarchal as the places mentioned in this article.

Again, not going to dignify your question with an answer. Two entirely separate issues. And, from the women I know, they much prefer not having FGM cause it means they also get to enjoy sex.

Annasopra · 21-02-2018 08:02PM

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Yes, I do.

I support abortion in certain circumstances; medical cases (e.g. the Savita case), rape cases, and incest cases. And to answer another poster’s question, I support abortion in cases of rape and incest because I believe that the woman’s right to bodily integrity trumps the unborn child’s right to life in such circumstances. As previously stated, I oppose abortion in “plain vanilla” circumstances and believe that women who procure abortions either at home or abroad should be criminalised. My “Rape Committee” solution of a senior Garda, a GP, and clinical psychologist for rape/incest cases has already been put forward. My thought process is therefore clear and I have done my best to address the incessant and repetitive questioning from the pro-abortion lobby. Beyond that, I have nothing further to say, other than to express hope that the debate, both here and further afield, can remain civil.

My opinion of your rape committee idea is that it is worse than the 8th and deeply mysogystic and judgemental and scarring of women.

2wsxcde3 · 21-02-2018 08:02PM

Some women are pressurized into FGM the same way some women are pressurized by abusive boyfriends into getting an abortion.

But some women choose to do FGM of their own accord. Are you pro-choice for these women?

I'm guessing no. Why? Because you want to see the practice as a whole stamped out. Hmmm, sounds much like the pro-life position.

Annasopra · 21-02-2018 08:04PM

david75 wrote: »

Well the timing is very strange but this is happening

Seven judges to hear appeal over rights of unborn
Judgment may affect the wording of the referendum on the Eighth Amendment

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/seven-judges-to-hear-appeal-over-rights-of-unborn-1.3399385

The timing is being rushed so that there will be legal clatity before the referendum.

sondagefaux · 21-02-2018 08:04PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So....your evidence for women wanting to get FGM (or FGC, as they call it) is from cultures that have highly patriarchal societies that still, for the most part, view women as objects and breeders? Wow, much evidence, such persuasion! :rolleyes:

We live in a patriarchal society. Just look at Dail Eireann. So, do you support these womens right to choose to have FGM done to them? It's kind of shameful we are making women travel abroad to other countries to have this done, making them feel like criminals.

You've either deliberately or mistakenly left out the parts of the interview which show that for many girls and women, their consent is not given freely and is the result of social pressures put on women in the societies they live.
You also neglect to quote from the interview where the researcher explicitly says that decisions about circumcision are generally not individual decisions, but are collective decisions taken by the extended family and other influential members of the community.
Once again, your argument is based on incomplete information.

mrkiscool2 · 21-02-2018 08:05PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Some women are pressurized into FGM the same way some women are pressurized by abusive boyfriends into getting an abortion.

But some women choose to do FGM of their own accord. Are you pro-choice for these women?

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! Oh my glob, I'm done talking to you. You're a fcuking vile person and I pity any woman in your life.

2wsxcde3 · 21-02-2018 08:07PM

sondagefaux wrote: »

You've either deliberately or mistakenly left out the parts of the interview which show that for many girls and women, their consent is not given freely and is the result of social pressures put on women in the societies they live.
You also neglect to quote from the interview where the researcher explicitly says that decisions about circumcision are generally not individual decisions, but are collective decisions taken by the extended family and other influential members of the community.
Once again, your argument is based on incomplete information.

We have societal pressures too. Women must have a good career etc etc. And so a child would stop that. Women who stay at home minding children are often stigmatized in this country for "scrounging off the state". Women are under pressure from society to not be one of these moms.

Grayson · 21-02-2018 08:07PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Would you object to FGM being legalized in this country so? Some want it legalized. Or would you try to impose your viewpoints and morality on others by insisting it stay illegal.

Are you pro-choice for these women:

Why Some Women Choose to Get Circumcised
An anthropologist discusses some common misconceptions about female genital cutting, including the idea that men force women to undergo the procedure.
(Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/ )

A couple of things.

1) please stop posting the same thing over and over again.

2) is fgm illegal? I mean just about any cosmetic surgery can be gotten by a consenting adult. It might be stupid but there's any amount of scarification I could get done. I know FGM is condemned and it's illegal to do it to teenagers but is the procedure actually illegal in all cases?

3) What has it got with the right of a woman to chose to terminate a pregnancy.

pitifulgod · 21-02-2018 08:10PM

Charmeleon wrote: »

That was the case before contraception and the right to travel were corrected in law. If you want to prevent pregnancy, have an abortion or the morning after pill the state will not stand in your way. The question is whether abortion should be permitted as a service within the state.

That's not true, if you can't travel to the UK due to being an asylum seeker or not meeting visa requirements or if you simply can't afford to travel. So yep, the state does prevent certain people from having abortions due to not everyone having same advantages to travel to UK.

2wsxcde3 · 21-02-2018 08:14PM

Grayson wrote: »

What has it got with the right of a woman to chose to terminate a pregnancy.

I'm testing the consistency of the pro-choice position (which is a fair thing to do in any argument). If you truly believe a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body, then you have to follow that position to its natural conclusion.

But we seem to be seeing that pro-choice people don't believe that women who follow a religion or culture different from their own should have the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body.

Pro-life people are often viewed as "controlling a woman and her body" if they are against abortion. But you can see from your own position on FGM (which i presume you are against it), your position is out of compassion for how the procedure impacts other people (such as women who don't want FGM) and children who are given no say in the procedure (like the unborn child). And so you don't believe the procedure should be legalized simply to placate women who do want FGM ...due to the effect it will have on those who don't want it.

Grayson · 21-02-2018 08:22PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I'm testing the consistency of the pro-choice position (which is a fair thing to do in any argument). If you truly believe a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body, then you have to follow that position to its natural conclusion.

But we seem to be seeing that pro-choice people don't believe that women who follow a religion or culture different from their own should have the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body.

Pro-life people are often viewed as "controlling a woman and her body" if they are against abortion. But you can see from your own position on FGM (which i presume you are against it), your position is out of compassion for how the procedure impacts other people (such as women who don't want FGM) and children who are given no say in the procedure (like the unborn child). And so you don't believe the procedure should be legalized simply to placate women who do want FGM ...due to the effect it will have on those who don't want it.

What you're suggesting is a slippery slope argument. It's bollox.

For what it's worth, if anyone of their own free will wants to change their genitals then they can work away. I'm not about to stop a bloke getting a prince albert even though I personally consider it stupid.

Edit: Btw, the issue most people have with FGM is someone being forced to endure it. I'm against that. Just as I'm against someone being forced to carry a pregnancy to term or being forced to have a termination.

Note the word forced. As in it's not their choice.

2wsxcde3 · 21-02-2018 08:24PM

Grayson wrote: »

For what it's worth, if anyone of their own free will wants to change their genitals then they can work away.

Then it would need to be legalized in this country first and practiced under a safe medical environment in our hospitals.

SusieBlue · 21-02-2018 08:25PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I'm testing the consistency of the pro-choice position (which is a fair thing to do in any argument). If you truly believe a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body, then you have to follow that position to its natural conclusion.

But we seem to be seeing that pro-choice people don't believe that women who follow a religion or culture different from their own should have the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body.

Pro-life people are often viewed as "controlling a woman and her body" if they are against abortion. But you can see from your own position on FGM (which i presume you are against it), your position is out of compassion for how the procedure impacts other people (such as women who don't want FGM) and children who are given no say in the procedure (like the unborn child). And so you don't believe the procedure should be legalized simply to placate women who do want FGM ...due to the effect it will have on those who don't want it.

I’ll humour you.

I disagree with FGM, it’s misogynic, barbaric and and used as a means to control women.

However if a living, sentient woman WANTS and CONSENTS to having her genitals mutilated, then who am I to stop her?

sondagefaux · 21-02-2018 08:27PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

sondagefaux wrote: »

You've either deliberately or mistakenly left out the parts of the interview which show that for many girls and women, their consent is not given freely and is the result of social pressures put on women in the societies they live.
You also neglect to quote from the interview where the researcher explicitly says that decisions about circumcision are generally not individual decisions, but are collective decisions taken by the extended family and other influential members of the community.
Once again, your argument is based on incomplete information.

We have societal pressures too. Women must have a good career etc etc. And so a child would stop that. Women who stay at home minding children are often stigmatized in this country for "scrounging off the state". Women are under pressure from society to not be one of these moms.

You're reaching now. The Irish state provides child benefit to support child-rearing. It also provides paid parental leave from work and employers are legally constrained from either firing or treating pregnant women or recent mothers in unjustified discriminatory ways - there have been multiple cases where women have successfully sued employers for unfairly discriminating against them on those grounds.

Women who stay at home minding children are often stigmatized in this country for "scrounging off the state".

Can you provide some evidence of this stigmatisation, especially evidence that it 'often' occurs? Over one-in-three births in Ireland are to women who aren't married at the time of the birth, although many of these women have partners. Many of these women without partners are entitled to One Parent Family Payments. If the degree of stigmatisation you claim is true, I would have thought that only a very small percentage of women would contemplate having children outside of marriage, especially those who will end up reliant on state support while raising their children. And yet Ireland has a high rate of non-marital births (https://phys.org/news/2016-04-unmarried-births-norm-western-europe.html), with 36.5% of all births in 2015 being non-marital births (http://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/pressreleases/2016pressreleases/pressreleasebirthsdeathsandmarriagesin2015/).
If it's such a stigma, you'd think the rates of non-marital births, especially to women without long-term partners who may have to rely on state support while raising their children, would be much lower, around the levels that prevail in eastern Poland for example (see map in first article linked to above).

mrkiscool2 · 21-02-2018 08:28PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I'm testing the consistency of the pro-choice position (which is a fair thing to do in any argument). If you truly believe a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body, then you have to follow that position to its natural conclusion.

But we seem to be seeing that pro-choice people don't believe that women who follow a religion or culture different from their own should have the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body.

Pro-life people are often viewed as "controlling a woman and her body" if they are against abortion. But you can see from your own position on FGM (which i presume you are against it), your position is out of compassion for how the procedure impacts other people (such as women who don't want FGM) and children who are given no say in the procedure (like the unborn child). And so you don't believe the procedure should be legalized simply to placate women who do want FGM ...due to the effect it will have on those who don't want it.

Right. Calmed down a bit. I still stand by what I said, but I'm willing to wade through your sh1te.

Firstly, right, you can't even keep the goal posts in the same place on the FGM point. Firstly, it's "Well, women want this, so you have to support it because you support abortion." Then it's "Well, Ireland is patriarchal!" and finally "Men force women to get FGM so will therefore force women to get abortions here. Checkmate, Atheists!". Seriously, can you have one logical consistent point? (Even if you are poisoning the well and taking a real issue for women in other countries where they are cut so they can't enjoy sex, just to cement their place as fcuk toys and baby-makers, as the same as abortion. It's not, FGM is far more a serious issue to solve than abortion, but we don't have the FGM issue here because we outlaw disgusting practices on people under 18.)

Secondly, if a grown woman, above the age of 18, wants to have her genitals mutilated to leave a scar and never feel pleasure for sex, more power to her. The same way guys can get circumcised to make their penis look better, even if it means the sex isn't as good for them.

Thirdly, if someone doesn't support FGM but does support abortion, that doesn't make them logically inconsistent. It just makes them someone who doesn't want to see FGM become something children are forced into due to religion, or being raised to get it done the minute they turn 18 or their family will disown them!

sondagefaux · 21-02-2018 08:30PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

What has it got with the right of a woman to chose to terminate a pregnancy.

I'm testing the consistency of the pro-choice position (which is a fair thing to do in any argument). If you truly believe a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body, then you have to follow that position to its natural conclusion.

But we seem to be seeing that pro-choice people don't believe that women who follow a religion or culture different from their own should have the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body.

Pro-life people are often viewed as "controlling a woman and her body" if they are against abortion. But you can see from your own position on FGM (which i presume you are against it), your position is out of compassion for how the procedure impacts other people (such as women who don't want FGM) and children who are given no say in the procedure (like the unborn child). And so you don't believe the procedure should be legalized simply to placate women who do want FGM ...due to the effect it will have on those who don't want it.

You haven't provided any evidence that women are freely consenting to FGM. The article you linked to in support specifically says that decisions about female circumcision taken in societies the researcher is familiar with are not taken by individual women consenting freely, but are the result of family and social pressures.

Spanish Eyes · 21-02-2018 08:33PM

Looks like the referendum will pass. Too many lunatics in the asylum now making no sense at all really. Shame on them.

The decision should be between the woman and her medical advisor and no one else.

But sure that would mean no one else has control over women.

ForestFire · 21-02-2018 08:35PM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

No, you can ask questions. Never said you couldn't. And actually, originally, I thought you were asking should we in the sense should we make it law, which was fine. Again, I can find your question revolting but you have every right to ask it.

And no, the question isn't asking do we think it's okay to abandon one's sick child because it is sick. It is asking whether or not a woman should be allowed to choose whether they go through with 9 months of highly difficult pregnancy followed by (at minimum) 18 years of supporting that fetus once it's born (and becomes a child).

Gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. The link doesn't work. You can repost and I'll read it and THEN answer you.

You did not sat you found it disgusting, you said it was disgusting to even ask it, as if I should not, but let's move on.

I'll ask again, can you see how the referendum question could be seen as the same type of question to some people and they might just find it too much too far?(Not to you or possible even me , but to some people who believe the fetus is life, right or wrong, proven or not ,with our current understanding.)

2wsxcde3 · 21-02-2018 08:39PM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Secondly, if a grown woman, above the age of 18, wants to have her genitals mutilated to leave a scar and never feel pleasure for sex, more power to her. The same way guys can get circumcised to make their penis look better, even if it means the sex isn't as good for them.
!

Some women might want FGM because they think it will make her seem "pure" to her future husband. Just like some women undergo breast enlargement to make themselves more appealing to their future husband. But the woman who wants FGM is discriminated against in Ireland because FGM is illegal in this country. And so she is forced to travel abroad to get it done, and made feel like a criminal in the process. If you agree that a consenting woman to FGM should be given the choice, then you should be against the 2012 law making it illegal here in Ireland and in favor of setting up the practice in our hospitals where it can be done under a safe medical environment.

But of course, innocent women and children will get caught up in the crossfire if you do that. And so it shouldn't be done.

Ken. · 21-02-2018 08:39PM

Mod-Ok, The FGM is done with. Their is a thread around here somewhere for that topic so drop it in this thread. This thread is a really good debate and we are loathe to start thread-banning people.

2wsxcde3 · 21-02-2018 08:40PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The decision should be between the woman and her medical advisor and no one else.

That's what Ali Selim said!

mrkiscool2 · 21-02-2018 08:45PM

ForestFire wrote: »

You did not sat you found it disgusting, you said it was disgusting to even ask it, as if I should not, but let's move on.

I'll ask again, can you see how the referendum question could be seen as the same type of question to some people and they might just find it too much too far?(Not to you or possible even me , but to some people who believe the fetus is life, right or wrong, proven or not ,with our current understanding.)

Apologies, I should have preferenced with "I".

Sure, the same way that some people (like myself) think it's disgusting that the state should have any control on whether or not a woman should have to carry a fetus to term. We can all find questions disgusting but the tough questions have to asked, especially when they put lives at risk or ask someone to go through 9 months of pain and suffering.

Spanish Eyes · 21-02-2018 08:50PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

That's what Ali Selim said!

Who is he? What control has he regarding women in this country?

Shoo.

sondagefaux · 21-02-2018 08:58PM

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The decision should be between the woman and her medical advisor and no one else.

That's what Ali Selim said!

Since the mods have decided that FGM can't be discussed in this thread, I've sent you a PM. The gist of it is that your interpretation of the law on FGM in Ireland is wrong. I won't discuss FGM any further in this thread.

Edward M · 22-02-2018 11:21AM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Looks like the referendum will pass. Too many lunatics in the asylum now making no sense at all really. Shame on them.

The decision should be between the woman and her medical advisor and no one else.

But sure that would mean no one else has control over women.

Her medical advisor might!
But if you're after free choice, then the medical advisor doesn't count anyway.
Basically the only reason a doctor or medical advisor would be needed is to administer tablets or surgical abortion, their advice need only be needed in cases where continuing a wanted pregnancy would have adverse affects on the woman's health or the baby's.

JDD · 22-02-2018 01:20PM

Presumably someone means "it's between the woman and her medical advisor" they don't mean the decision is a joint one. They mean the logistics of it are between the woman and her medical advisor. Obviously her GP is there to explain any health risks and side effects, like they do before prescribing anything. Some GPs might try to have a discussion regarding how the woman was feeling about making the decision, whether she might want counselling in advance of making a final decision or whether she may want counselling after terminating etc, especially if she's looking particularly stressed or voices any internal conflict. However to be honest I would say most GPs won't have time for those sorts of conversations, hence why GPs were so annoyed that they weren't consulted before Simon Harris announced that the abortion pill would be a GP-led service. And ultimately a GP won't have any actual decision making powers.

pilly · 22-02-2018 04:02PM

I heard Cora Sherlock on the news at lunchtime basically trying to call a halt to the referendum by calling in question the whole process of the Citizens Assembly.

It's such a sign of panic when you're scrambling around trying desperately to prevent the public from having any say in this. When asked if surely the referendum result was the only one that matters she stuttered and stammered like mad.

It gave me comfort anyway, if the pro-lifers were sure of a win they'd be pushing for a referendum tomorrow.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments