nice_guy80 wrote: » what about all the other progressive countries who allow abortion?
Ismisejack wrote: » Abortion is a barbaric practice and inhumane and has no place in a progressive 21st century Ireland. With the 8th amendment in place Ireland can lead the way with improved pregnancy services and have best care for both mother and unborn in the world
Charmeleon wrote: » The computer says no? It’s a genuine, moderate position, between the hardliner, extreme positions that the foetus has a ‘soul’ and killing it is not justified in any circumstances and the equally extreme position that the unborn are not worthy of any consideration or protection. I know it seems weird and fake when you hear opinions that don’t match with either of the extreme ideologies but I would think it applies to the majority of people out there. If the extreme positions were correct then it’s either a 50/50 decision on which life to save in an emergency or, there is no moral difference in having three abortions per year as compared with three tooth extractions per year. I don’t think the majority of people agree with either of these extremes. They don’t have a place in the debate trenches though, because ‘if you’re not repeating scripture, you’re just evil’.
JDD wrote: » True. But people do tend to get more conservative as they get older. I wager a 25 year old in 1983, who would be 60 now, probably believes "young people" these days are taking too many risks sexually and probably have a different view on unrestricted terminations than they may have done in their youth.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
captbarnacles wrote: » You wish all pregnant women have the same consideration according to you? I don't believe you are on the fence at all Edward and statements like "given its true consideration' show what you really think.
dudara wrote: » This will have to remain a wish on your part, and trust me, I can understand where you’re coming from. But short of thought policing women to make sure that they have given “due consideration” and that they comply with your moral code, how else is this possible or even desirable? To be honest I think that the amount of women who will give an abortion a lot of thought before proceeding will vastly outweigh those that won’t. This is contradictory with the statement above IMO. It appears you’ll only trust women once they’ve met the moral standard.
Edward M wrote: » Very valid post FF. The eighth is a dangerous part of the constitution and voting against repeal is endangering women's health and lives. Because of the thirteenth amendment abortions are going to happen anyway, voting against repeal won't stop that and with pills available online it is happening here too as well. I would just wish that the potential value of the life to be aborted would be given its true consideration before that abortion happens, not just thinking on it as having as little value as swatting a fly for instance. I do trust women to make their decisions based on necessity rather than convenience and do trust govts to be sensible how far they go on time allowed to abort. In general I would be pro life, I suspect most people are really, in the sense that abortion is a last resort for most having taken everything in to consideration. While in a ideal world there shouldn't be a need for it, that isn't always the case and forcing the necessary abroad is a joke really.
Edward M wrote: » I would just wish that the potential value of the life to be aborted would be given its true consideration before that abortion happens, not just thinking on it as having as little value as swatting a fly for instance.
I do trust women to make their decisions based on necessity rather than convenience and do trust govts to be sensible how far they go on time allowed to abort.
Call me Al wrote: » What do you mean by this? How do you envision thus works? What does this "giving consideration" consist if? Who are you asking to do make these considerations, in light if the fact that you go on to say you respect women to make their own decisions?
Edward M wrote: » .... I would just wish that the potential value of the life to be aborted would be given its true consideration before that abortion happens, not just thinking on it as having as little value as swatting a fly for instance..
realitykeeper wrote: » Everything. The "new morality" you seem to favour is an epiphany of hell. The tough love of yesteryear was the right way. Abandoning the old morals will have devastating repercussions.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Perhaps your sarcasm would be better directed that the person extolling the past as some moral nirvana or does the fact that they share your views prevent that so instead you have a go at the person who responded to their nonsense?
kylith wrote: » I understand your feelings, but to some people it is a clump of cells; some for reasons of self preservation. I know one or two people who had multiple miscarriages before 12 weeks, and for them thinking of it as a baby would have made the repeated losses unbearable.
Bob_Marley wrote: » Sorry, my mistake, thought it was a thread about the 8th amendment and abortion . . carry on.
WhiteRoses wrote: » If you had read the post I was actually responding to and quoting, I was replying to the notion that the Ireland of yesterday was a more moral and better place to live. I was responding directly to that point that in my opinion, the Ireland of yesteryear treated its vulnerable citizens extremely poorly and I’m glad that as a society we no longer do that. In no part of my post did I mention equal rights to human life, or my opinion abortion at all, so I have no idea where you pulled that from. I was speaking specifically of the past of our country.
Bob_Marley wrote: » And religious people could start talking about the penal laws. . .but why does any of this whataboutery make it ok to terminate a human life though ? A person does not have to be religious in any way to respect the equal right to human life. Or are you claiming that they do ?
ForestFire wrote: » This means recognizing that we are not merely talking about a clump of cells at 12 weeks. We should not hide or try to hide pictures of 12 week fetus and any other factually information, behind some veil of insensitivity.
ForestFire wrote: » Totally agree I have openly stated before, I am likley to vote repeal, but I will question mostly this side as I still have many questions. I also believe we should vote with all the open information of our choice and it's implications. This means recognizing that we are not merely talking about a clump of cells at 12 weeks. We should not hide or try to hide pictures of 12 week fetus and any other factually information, behind some veil of insensitivity. This is the essence of what we are voting on, it is a sensitive issue to all of us for different reasons, and we are all adults, so let's not hide it, as that's what it looks like, hide and conceals and dimiss the other side of the debate. I have no problem with the arguments on sentience, MAP, current option in the UK, womens autonomy, women's health care and past comications and deaths of some woman. The latest now is we must be shills and trolls for having questions and being openly undecided, which seems like another attempt to say stop posting, or don't listen to them, there must be some hidden agenda. None of this helps. When I vote I want to ensure I know exactly what I am voting for, and be personnel resonsible for the vote whichever way I choose, so If I decide to ask some hard hitting questions you can ignore, or as some have done, respond with factual information, which is appreciated.
WhiteRoses wrote: » The Ireland of yesteryear was a terrifying place. Women were treated as second class citizens, children were treated appallingly, ‘promiscuous’ women were sentenced to the laundries where their children were robbed from them and sold to the highest bidder. ‘Illigitimate’ children were treated worse than vermin, many of whom ended up in septic tanks and unmarked graves. Child abuse by the catholic clergy was rampant, poverty was rife, it was still legal to rape your own wife and government assistance for those on the breadline was non existent. Women couldn’t work as soon as they wed, no contraception, no option to divorce an abusive partner or even just a marriage you no longer wanted to be in. People made the best of the circumstances they had but it’s certainly not a time period to look back on with rose tinted glasses, nor should we aspire as a society to ever treat our most vulnerable citizens in such a disgusting way.
tonymontanavu wrote: » I understand the scepticism but I stated in my first post that I registered to post here. I made two points; don't reduce the fetus to nothing to aid the argument and the chance to have a choice to abort a pregnancy is what is wanted (not limited to that but it should be stated openly to remove the stigma) . I can do no more to convince people my motives are genuine than state my support and the fact I feel that the outcome would be fair and reasonable
realitykeeper wrote: » Doing what you are told is not the same as being religious and listening to Catholic bashing on RTE is called being indoctrinated.
