end of the road wrote: » of course there should be an investigation and trial. my point was that if it's woman shaming to say that someone who has an abortion on demand must be ashamed of their actions, then it's woman shaming to say that someone convicted of killing a newborn must be ashamed.
volchitsa wrote: » The law doesnt allow women to be tried for abortions carried out abroad because of the 13th amendment. Are you suggesting that should be changed? Also, women could probably be charged for procuring and using the abortion pill but nobody seems prepared to suggest this should be done. Do you think it should?
end of the road wrote: » yes i do in both cases think such should happen. however i know it's not going to happen so the current situation is the next best thing.
volchitsa wrote: » Except it's not, it's closer to the norm in most of Europe than the British 24 week/access controlled law is. And what is really radical is a ban that requires a woman to be at risk of death before abortion is allowed. You also seem to be contradicting yourself. You said it was more radical than British law, but that if it passed, Ireland would inevitably move towrds the British form all the same.
volchitsa wrote: » Looks like a clear case of having your scaremongering cake and eating it, to me.
volchitsa wrote: » If it has the same meaning, what is the difference? You'd prefer it not to sound quite as bad, is that all? But in fact your version is untrue, it's not "any threat to her life at all" it has to be "a real and substantial risk" to her life. Not a potential risk to her life, and not a small risk to her life. That was part of the hospital's defence in the investigation into Savita Hallapanavar, IIRC, that she had to be at over 50% risk of death, and since there is no way of measuring the change from 49% to 51%, they were not at obvious fault for having missed that. And yes, refusing to treat someone because even though their health is in danger, they are not yet at substantial risk of death is pretty shocking. Would you really be happy to be told that your ongoing heart problems were not yet bad enough to be treated, even though you were in pain and your health was suffering, and they would wait until you were actually at risk of dying before beginning treatment?
....... wrote: » Provide evidence to back this assertion please? You are wrong. There are a number of different definitions but all pregnancies carry a risk of death.source
volchitsa wrote: » "The next best thing"? Really? Several thousand legal deaths of "children" every year? Are you serious? If I believed what you say you do, I'd feel obliged to do something to stop it, I'd write letters to the newspapers and to my TD every week, march outside ferryports and Dublin airport, keep on and on until people started to listen. Or until I was arrested for being a public nuisance But no way would I think it was ok to have thousands of children being murdered every single year. If you really believe it.
end of the road wrote: » abortion on demand just because isn't okay. however the reason why the current situation is the next best thing, is it imposes difficulty on people who want to have an abortion outside medical necessity, and it possibly deterrs some from having one. no law stops everyone from commiting an act.
J C wrote: » Being alive carries a risk of death ... indeed the certainty of death, at some point in the future ... so are you going to resolve this risk by killing unborn people? ... or should we simply try and mitigate the risks of death as best we can ... until death finally finds us all?
volchitsa wrote: » We dont force other people to risk their lives against their will though. Except pregnant women in Ireland.
volchitsa wrote: » Women still had abortions when it was both deadly dangerous and punished by severe sanctions so a law that allows them to have one as long as they use Ryanair is hardly likely to be very effective.
volchitsa wrote: » It's also irrelevant, if you really think abortion is the equivalent of murder. Would you be satisfied with the same level of deterrent to murder? A long prison sentence but which the Min for Justice said was not intended to be used in cases of murder? In a context of several thousand known murders a year? I don't think so.
david75 wrote: » Listen to yourself. And do some reading. Women with FFA on the cards are still having to travel for abortion. Unless you support forcing them to give birth to a baby that won’t survive? Have all the facts before you make such statements will you?
end of the road wrote: » i have all the facts. hence being happy with the decisian i have made in terms of how i'm going to vote. i have stated plenty of times that FFA is a case where abortion should be permitted, but i believe this can be allowed via the existing law, hence i won't be voting for repeal in an aim to allow abortion in the circumstances where i believe it must be provided.
david75 wrote: » Every article and actual factual evidence out there says the 8th hurts those you claim to support aka ‘extreme cases’. *this is why we’re having the referendum. The 8th is not fit for purpose* Yet you’re voting to keep it. Laughable.
end of the road wrote: » and i agree that in some ways it isn't fit for purpose. however, it does currently protect the unborn's right to life, and given the proposals on the table to allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, i have no option but to vote no to repeal as i couldn't vote for anything that will allow abortion on demand in ireland.
david75 wrote: » The contradiction within that post alone on your position isn’t particular to you. But it does show a glaring gap in understanding. You’re happy to deal with more suffering in order to force babies to be born that cannot live and force their mothers to suffer further by having to travel or not being able to afford to, force the marriage to give birth here and watch the baby die. Painfully. For both mother and child. That’s not chirstian. That’s totally inhuman.
J C wrote: » These children don't die painfully ... in fact many survive ... and go on to live normal lives, if the advice to abort is ignored ... and the ones who do die ... simply 'slip away' to be with God. What is inhuman is to kill these most vulnerable of the most vulnerable ... for no good reason, actually. ... but then abortion on demand of healthy children is also proposed ... for no good reason as well. ... and the repeal of the 8th is also proposed for no good reason.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » And not a single thought for the parents who have to watch this. Disgusting comment from you!
Nick Park wrote: » Actually there isn't a contradiction. I know plenty of people who would support the 8th Amendment being amended to permit abortion in the comparatively few cases of so-called FFA or rape. But they can't support straightforward repeal because it would inevitably result in a much larger number of abortions where such circumstances do not apply. For what it's worth, having being the parent of a child with a so-called FFA (who actually lived over 4 years after birth), I support keeping the 8th as it is.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » And not a single thought for the parents who have to watch this.
volchitsa wrote: » But the 8th is not about allowing, or even encouraging, families with such a diagnosis to choose to continue the pregnancy, that can be done without the 8th existing. What the 8th does is try to force people into continuing the pregnancy. By law. Basically you are right, and this woman is wrong : http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/diary-of-losing-a-baby-1930048-Feb2015/
volchitsa wrote: » My question was where the 8th comes into that. Forcing women who may be finding it psychologically unbearable to continue waking up every morning wondering if their baby has died during the night to go on for weeks or months has nothing to do with caring for women.
