Peregrinus wrote: » I am talking about the view that it's a good and welcome thing for society if the number of people with Downs is reduced by aborting pregnancies where Downs is diagnosed.
smacl wrote: » Worth remembering that laws change as society evolves.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » So Peregrinus you admit nobody in this country never mind this forum is advocating that position but you thought you'd lob the grenade in there anyway. FUD of the lowest order. The rest of your post is just self serving waffle.
lazygal wrote: » Most people having abortions are not doing so because they don't want a baby with down syndrome. They just don't want to be pregnant. Down syndrome is an obsession of the anti choice side. There are a host of other chromosone disorders which can show up and mean someone chooses an abortion. And Down Syndrome Ireland have asked everyone to stop focusing on their children. I don't speak for LGBTQI people but I'd imagine their various representative groups wouldn't take kindly to the notion that we remove choice from pregnant people in their name.
smacl wrote: » This is nonsensical as being born without Downs is clearly positive for the newborn.
end of the road wrote: » however it's better to have a situation where it can't be availible within the state unless it's for medically necessary reasons.
seamus wrote: » Yeah, just to clarify - the requirement of any constitutional referendum is to ask voters whether they approve a proposal to amend the constitution with only "Yes" or "No" answers in response to it. It's not possible to have multiple-choice referendums, or "Yes, if the other one passes" type questions. The ballot paper will say: "Do you approve of the proposal to amend the constitution contained in the undermentioned bill? Thirty-Sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018 [] Yes [] No" And that's it.
lazygal wrote: » All abortions are medically necessary. I will not take on the risks of pregnancy and birth unless I choose to. The medical issues are far too serious.
aloyisious wrote: » Citizens will be asked whether they want to retain the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution - that enshrines equal rights for the mother and unborn - or repeal it and replace it with an enabling provision that allows the Dáil to legislate on the issue, Mr Varadkar said. Simon Harris's statements on any change voted in by us is the same, that we give the Oireachtas the right to make abortion law. The referendum won't simply be: do you approve or disapprove the deletion of the 8th amendment...... the words above will also be put to us to decide on. That is what I meant when I wrote that the referendum question will be a two-parter.
end of the road wrote: » all abortions would not be medically necessary, many are unnecessary and are had for lifestyle and convenience reasons. cases of FFA, cases where the mother's life is under threat or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability are medically necessary abortions, and should be provided in the state. abortion because one doesn't want to be pregnant is lifestyle/convenience abortion and is not a medically necessary abortion, and has no requirement to be provided in the state.
aloyisious wrote: » The referendum won't simply be: do you approve or disapprove the deletion of the 8th amendment...... the words above will also be put to us to decide on. That is what I meant when I wrote that the referendum question will be a two-parter.
aloyisious wrote: » Would you agree to a woman taking an abortifacient pill then so she can stop a pregnancy she does NOT want {for whatever undisclosed reason] her body is starting and which, if not stopped, she would naturally have to bear for 9 months?. Do you keep in mind that you do not know the convenience reason you mention in respect of abortion behind the woman's decision? Bear in mind that the state would not be providing the means of the abortion.
end of the road wrote: » assuming you are referring to the map i would not consider that an abortifacient. it stops implantation in the first place. however once implantation happens and the development begins then no abortion unless genuinely medically necessary.
end of the road wrote: » i would have to disagree, all abortions would not be medically necessary, many are unnecessary and are had for lifestyle and convenience reasons. cases of FFA, cases where the mother's life is under threat or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability are medically necessary abortions, and should be provided in the state. abortion because one doesn't want to be pregnant is lifestyle/convenience abortion and is not a medically necessary abortion, and has no requirement to be provided in the state. so essentially we would be asked do we agree to repeal the 8th. and then do we agree to allow the government to legislate on the issue. i can see a problem with that. what if repeal of the 8th is passed but the question to allow government to legislate isn't? that's why i can't see it being a 2 parter myself.
recedite wrote: » You're not talking about curing them though. There's a big difference between curing and culling, even if the overall impact on numbers is the same; ie fewer of whatever it is. You're making a big deal about the fact that the culling would occur before birth. So in your mind, this means the culling never happens, but the beneficial result on numbers does happen. Its like a magical perpetual motion machine. No troublesome inputs, but you still get to reap all your benefits on the output side of the equation.
end of the road wrote: » Down Syndrome Ireland asking everyone to stop focusing on their children is simply an opinion, which there is no obligation to agree to, and correctly people aren't agreeing to it given the increased risk of unborn babies with the condition being aborted.
smacl wrote: » You got it Rec, for culling to happen you'd need to have people to cull. A fetus is not a person. And FWIW, vaccinations aren't cures either. The pro-life side would seem to think that Downs is somehow desirable, something we should be keen to retain. For your religious bedfellows I can get it on the basis of God's will, inshallah, etc... but I struggle to see why an atheist would take this tack. As an aside, I'd be interested in hearing what point in the fertilisation, implantation, embryo, gestation period you think a person comes into being and why?
recedite wrote: » Nobody has said DS is desirable. Just that its not a hanging offence. Also I don't think my religious buddies have any specific commandment on the divine protection of DS people? They are just treating them as fellow humans. FWIW, I don't believe there is any specific point at which full human rights should be assigned. Just a spectrum along which the developing person is deserving of more and more respect. If this proposed referendum passes, all human rights will be stripped away, right up until the moment a baby takes its first breath of air.
aloyisious wrote: » I don't know how the govt is going to get past that wording conundrum but it might provide us with two separate forms to mark when we turn up at the polling station with our voting cards. We are often asked to vote on separate questions in referedums. The Govt, through Leo and Simon and the AG, have clearly stated that if we vote to delete the 8th amendment that the wording spoken of by Leo and Simon Harris would authorise the Oireachtas to legislate on abortion. It would, IMO, be very presumptive of them to assume that merely by us deleting the 8th we gave them the right to so legislate. Surely we must be given the right to so approve by a question and not merely by default, or do you think that would be OK with you? EDIT take a look at Seamus's last post above on the answer: the addition of a new section to the constitution to replace what we voted to delete. I hope you will take your time to respond to my posts. My keyboard is resisting my efforts to use the letters a, c, e, f, and n when writing.
smacl wrote: » It is not an opinion at all, it is an entirely reasonable request. Choosing to ignore such a request to further your own agenda is both hateful and pathetic.
lazygal wrote: » All abortion is medically necessary.
lazygal wrote: » Pregnancy and birth can be lethal and no one should be forced through that without their consent.
end of the road wrote: » no only some are. they are being prevented from killing the unborn within the state rather then being forced through anything. one does not have a right to kill the unborn outside extreme reasons within ireland.
aloyisious wrote: » So a rewording of the above might end with it reading as - pregnant women have no option but to go through a full term pregnancy without any killing of the unborn within their wombs excepting for a lawful medically recognized and approved necessity of killing said unborn to save the life of the woman?
aloyisious wrote: » Edit:add-on..... Re your [i'd rather the 2 questions myself. what i was doing was pondering the possibility of what would happen if the first part (repealing the 8th) was passed but not the second] the deletion result would probably be declared null and void on the "all or nothing" basis of referedum results. Otherwise we'd be going back to the courts.
recedite wrote: » Nobody has said DS is desirable. Just that its not a hanging offence. Also I don't think my religious buddies have any specific commandment on the divine protection of DS people? They are just treating them as fellow humans.
FWIW, I don't believe there is any specific point at which full human rights should be assigned. Just a spectrum along which the developing person is deserving of more and more respect. If this proposed referendum passes, all human rights will be stripped away, right up until the moment a baby takes its first breath of air.
smacl wrote: » outside of religious or purely emotional reasons, I can't think of any reason why we should consider a fetus that has yet to develop a functional brain to be a person.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » But do you accept that this is ultimately a matter of ethical judgement rather than scientific fact and that if someone decides that a new 'person' comes into existence at the point of fertilisation, that cannot be 'disproved' by science?
seamus wrote: » It depends on what their definition of "person" is, surely?
smacl wrote: » . The ethics, philosophy, voodoo and other various religious influences come into play in arriving at this definition, but I'd guess that finally it comes down to consensus.
smacl wrote: » For example, Catholic doctrine places it at conception and holds that the morning after pill thus constitutes abortion. If you don't hold with this, and think the morning after pill is ok, that means you've drawn a mental line in the sand later into the gestation period where it is not ok.
smacl wrote: » Like yourself, I don't for a moment believe there is a specific point where this happens, but outside of religious or purely emotional reasons, I can't think of any reason why we should consider a fetus that has yet to develop a functional brain to be a person...
