Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But it's already facilitated, as you don't believe we should try to stop women from getting abortions abroad.

it's not facilitated within the irish state unless the mother's life is in danger, and i have said that i do believe that in theory we shouldn't facilitate people procuring abortions abroad, but that it wasn't practical to implement such rules as much as i would like them.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Politicians already decided, when they added the 8th amendment. What made that decision perfect?

no act will ever be truely perfect, but the 8th protects the life of the unborn, and as that will be the only act to do that as there is no plan to replace full protection for the right to life of the unborn, i have no option but to vote no to repeal.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except when the mother can afford the trip to the UK?

i have to protect the right to life of the unborn within ireland. and my vote will be in the aim of doing that. i can't stop someone traveling to avail of something that is legal elsewhere. it would be good if we could stop people from traveling to procure abortions abroad but it's not practical. having to travel to the uk and the expence is a likely deterrent to some, and those who do travel know that elements of society both here and britain rightly see their act as barbaric, so that is some consolation.

end of the road wrote: »

basically yes, i want to prevent abortion in non-necessary cases from being facilitated (lifestyle, contraceptive, convenience reasons) and i want the right to life for the unborn to remain as much as is practical (the cases of medical necessity as i mentioned, where i agree it's not viable to save the baby) would be an exemption.
i want this to be put into the constitution and i don't want it simply left to the politicians to be able to decide. but as that isn't an option because the government have put forward their proposals, i will have to vote no to repeal. i have to protect the right to life of the unborn.

It's, as I've said before here, a fulfilment of public desire for politicians to pull their finger out and legislate instead of using the constitution as an excuse for not legislating when and where required, as we pay and expect them to do. We and the courts have been venting steam for almost two decades now about Pols not having the courage to do their jobs, kicking the task into the remit of the courts. It's a "the devil and the deep blue sea" choice for them.

You would prefer to use the constitution to prevent the Pols having a degree of total power on some matters related to policy [in this case a citizens health issue] but probably not others. This time [unless the referendum is a large NO] we are going to have to trust the Pols to do what we pay them to do.

Edit... in regard to any legislation the Govt bring's in under the new section, Simon Harris made it clear any legislation brought in can be challenged in the courts as it would be separate from the section. In addition the president will have an input into the bringing of any legislation bill into law and can cause a delay by getting advice and rulings on it's constitutionality.

aloyisious wrote: »

It's, as I've said before here, a fulfilment of public desire for politicians to pull their finger out and legislate instead of using the constitution as an excuse for not legislating when and where required, as we pay and expect them to do. We and the courts have been venting steam for almost two decades now about Pols not having the courage to do their jobs, kicking the task into the remit of the courts. It's a "the devil and the deep blue sea" choice for them.

You would prefer to use the constitution to prevent the Pols having a degree of total power on some matters related to policy [in this case a citizens health issue] but probably not others. This time [unless the referendum is a large NO] we are going to have to trust the Pols to do what we pay them to do.

Edit... in regard to any legislation the Govt bring's in under the new section, Simon Harris made it clear any legislation brought in can be challenged in the courts as it would be separate from the section. In addition the president will have an input into the bringing of any legislation bill into law and can cause a delay by getting advice and rulings on it's constitutionality.

i want to use the constitution to protect the right to life of the unborn from conception unless medical necessity requires otherwise. the decisian on such a right for any human being shouldn't simply be left to the politicians to decide and legislate for. 12 weeks before the unborn's right to life kicks in is not good enough. realistically this is more an extreme contraceptive/convenience/lifestyle issue rather then a citizens health issue, as only a minority of cases of abortion would be down to actual health risks, whereas most are down to convenience/lifestyle reasons, which shouldn't be facilitated in ireland, especially at tax payer expence. abortion on demand is mostly what is wanted rather then just abortion in necessary cases, which if it was the opposite, repeal would have a lot more support including from many of us on the pro-life side. but as we are where we are, then for me and many others, protecting the right to life for the unborn will have to come first.

end of the road wrote: »

i want to use the constitution to protect the right to life of the unborn from conception unless medical necessity requires otherwise. the decisian on such a right for any human being shouldn't simply be left to the politicians to decide and legislate for. 12 weeks before the unborn's right to life kicks in is not good enough. realistically this is more an extreme contraceptive/convenience/lifestyle issue rather then a citizens health issue, as only a minority of cases of abortion would be down to actual health risks, whereas most are down to convenience/lifestyle reasons, which shouldn't be facilitated in ireland, especially at tax payer expence. abortion on demand is mostly what is wanted rather then just abortion in necessary cases, which if it was the opposite, repeal would have a lot more support including from many of us on the pro-life side. but as we are where we are, then for me and many others, protecting the right to life for the unborn will have to come first.

Yes, well we'll have to wait to see the ground rules on how easy, or hard, it will be to obtain the medical permission for an abortion, let alone proceeding to the actual abortion operative stage AND even further; be what you describe as lifestyle/convenience reasons for abortions.

I notice you've now extended the protection you want in the constitution to the conception period, when it wouldn't be possible to ascertain any degree of inherent or visible signs of the unborn having a physical fraility leading to FFA or the other reasons you previously said would meet with your OK for abortions to proceed in respect of the unborn. That, to me, indicates you are very fluid in what you want as protection for the unborn in respect of/to abortion. and leads me to the inevitable conclusion that, until you get to an actual position on allowing for abortion, there's not any real point in me debating it with you.

aloyisious wrote: »

Yes, well we'll have to wait to see the ground rules on how easy, or hard, it will be to obtain the medical permission for an abortion, let alone proceeding to the actual abortion operative stage AND even further; be what you describe as lifestyle/convenience reasons for abortions.

I notice you've now extended the protection you want in the constitution to the conception period, when it wouldn't be possible to ascertain any degree of inherent or visible signs of the unborn having a physical fraility leading to FFA or the other reasons you previously said would meet with your OK for abortions to proceed in respect of the unborn. That, to me, indicates you are very fluid in what you want as protection for the unborn in respect of/to abortion. and leads me to the inevitable conclusion that, until you get to an actual position on allowing for abortion, there's not any real point in me debating it with you.

i have been very clear on what i want, and where exemptions must apply. abortions can be carried out for FFA under my idea, which is to make it as water-tight as possible to prevent abortion on demand, yet allow for abortion in necessary cases. my position is clear, my position is water-tight.

Pherekydes

end of the road wrote: »

i have been very clear on what i want, and where exemptions must apply. abortions can be carried out for FFA under my idea, which is to make it as water-tight as possible to prevent abortion on demand, yet allow for abortion in necessary cases. my position is clear, my position is water-tight.

So you're in favour of murdering human beings in some circumstances? :rolleyes:

pleas advice

*unfollow

Pherekydes wrote: »

So you're in favour of murdering human beings in some circumstances?

no, i recognise there are occasions where it is genuinely necessary to perform an abortion. it doesn't mean i completely agree with the abortion, but i understand it's necessary to prevent injury or death to the mother, or to end the suffering of a baby who will not live to term.

Everyone knows protection of the unborn from abortion exists in the constitution, excepting for where the present POLDPA allows. If one wants to include FFA as a reasoned inclusion for abortion, it would probably be necessary to amend the POLDPA to include them as FFA abortions would have to be included via legislative CHANGES.

I am not sure if that can be done without amending the 8th, or as in the proposed referendum to be put to the people, to delete the 8th and allow for legislative action by the Pols which could bring in a new version of POLDPA.

It is my understanding that the present POLDPA act will be scrapped as well should the referendum be carried, and replaced by a newer version. FFA could be dealt with within the newer version of POLDPA, or whatever title given it.

I suggest that that would be the time/opportunity for people who wanted FFA allowed for in legislation to get it included as a reason for legal abortions.

I reckon that the Pro-life/anti-abortion groups have probably being preparing to fight any such new legislation brought before the Oireachtas after a YES vote in the referendum. I reckon that this, part 2 of the battle over abortion rights here, is well advanced plan-wise on the anti-abortion side. Whatever else they may be, they ain't fools.

John Bruton has weighed in on the Pro-life side of the national debate.....

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/john-bruton-says-ireland-should-be-proud-of-constitutional-protection-of-unborn-832016.html

In the same edition of the Examiner there is a columnist piece by Daniel McConnell titled "state of denial persists about abortion". It's well worth a read as along with giving both sides of the story it includes what the columnist say's is the words of the AG at the time, Peter Sutherlnd, given to the Govt about the 1983 8th amendment.

This excerpt includes what the columnist says is Mr Sutherland's words to the Govt in 1983... To remind you of what Mr Sutherland said: “In summary: the wording is ambiguous and unsatisfactory.

It will lead inevitably to confusion and uncertainty, not merely amongst the medical profession, to whom it has, of course, particular relevance, but also amongst lawyers and more specifically, the judges who will have to interpret it.
“Far from providing the protection and certainty which is sought by many of those who have advocated its adoption, it will have a contrary effect.

In particular it is not clear as to what life is being protected; as to whether ‘the unborn’ is protected from the moment of fertilisation or alternatively is left unprotected until an independently viable human being exists at 25 to 28 weeks.

“Further, having regard to the equal rights of the unborn and the mother, a doctor faced with the dilemma of saving the life of the mother, knowing that to do so will terminate the life of ‘the unborn’ will be compelled by the wording to conclude that he can do nothing.
“Whatever his intention, he will have to show equal regard for both lives, and his predominant intent will not be a factor. In these circumstances, I cannot approve of the wording proposed.”...........................

end of the road wrote: »

it's not facilitated within the irish state

It is facilitated in the Irish state, by the Irish state allowing women to travel for abortions without doing anything, not even token actions, to try to stop it.

end of the road wrote: »

no act will ever be truely perfect, but the 8th protects the life of the unborn, and as that will be the only act to do that as there is no plan to replace full protection for the right to life of the unborn, i have no option but to vote no to repeal.

But if the 8th is gone, then politicians could, in theory, put equivalent legislation in place. Lets be honest here, the issue isn't that you don't want it to be left to the politicians to decide, you don't want it to be left to the public to decide.

end of the road wrote: »

those who do travel know that elements of society both here and britain rightly see their act as barbaric, so that is some consolation.

I don't know about that. Surely many travelling would be aware that those same elements don't care about the barbarity of the act once it doesn't happen on Irish soil, either at all or by pretend like it's something they can't do anything about at all. I can't speak for anyone else, but to me that seems like massively disingenuous NIMBYism.

end of the road wrote: »

basically yes, i want to prevent abortion in non-necessary cases from being facilitated (lifestyle, contraceptive, convenience reasons)

What, exactly, is wrong with abortion as contraception? I'm talking about someone finding out they are pregnant as early as possible (e.g in the first week or two after conception) and then talking a pill to end it? What, functionally, is the difference between that and their pre-conception method not failing in the first place?

In simple terms, if abortion in that case is wrong, because it ultimately stops a baby being born, then why is any other contraception wrong, seeing as it has the same effect?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It is facilitated in the Irish state, by the Irish state allowing women to travel for abortions without doing anything, not even token actions, to try to stop it.

you mean facilitated by the irish state. abortion on demand is not facilitated within the irish state, as it's not provided for legally.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But if the 8th is gone, then politicians could, in theory, put equivalent legislation in place. Lets be honest here, the issue isn't that you don't want it to be left to the politicians to decide, you don't want it to be left to the public to decide.

they could, but they won't. abortion on demand will be the order of the day if the 8th is repealed, that is why it must stay. to both prevent abortion on demand from being legally availible, to insure the right to life of the unborn remains, and to stop such a matter from being left to the politicians. we the public can already have our say via referendum.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What, exactly, is wrong with abortion as contraception? I'm talking about someone finding out they are pregnant as early as possible (e.g in the first week or two after conception) and then talking a pill to end it? What, functionally, is the difference between that and their pre-conception method not failing in the first place?

In simple terms, if abortion in that case is wrong, because it ultimately stops a baby being born, then why is any other contraception wrong, seeing as it has the same effect?

contraception is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. abortion is to kill the unborn.

end of the road wrote: »

you mean facilitated by the irish state. abortion on demand is not facilitated within the irish state, as it's not provided for legally.

What's the difference?
I thought this was about saving babies? Are you really dragging this down to pointless semantics?

end of the road wrote: »

they could, but they won't. abortion on demand will be the order of the day if the 8th is repealed, that is why it must stay. to both prevent abortion on demand from being legally availible, to insure the right to life of the unborn remains, and to stop such a matter from being left to the politicians. we the public can already have our say via referendum.

Didn't they already say that the limit will be 12 weeks?

end of the road wrote: »

contraception is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. abortion is to kill the unborn.

Which implies that you believe it's a baby from the point of conceptions. Any chance you want to answer my question from before that you overlooked:
Do you think that all miscarriages should be investigated like any other sudden death?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What's the difference?
I thought this was about saving babies? Are you really dragging this down to pointless semantics?

of course it's about saving the unborn. however it was correct to point out that there is a difference between facilitated in and facilitated by.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Didn't they already say that the limit will be 12 weeks?

yes, but there are no guarantees that won't change long term.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which implies that you believe it's a baby from the point of conceptions.

implantation is when life begins and when humanity begins. it becomes a baby before 12 weeks however.

What I'm interested in is when they'll hold the referendum. If the Govt doesn't get all it's ducks in a row with follow-up legislation assured and ready for a YES result, then there is a chance of it not holding one, or no point of holding a referendum.

Simon Harris said the POLDPA would be rescinded on a YES result and new legislation would replace it. The Oireachtas parties have got to be ready to be happy with whatever legislation the Govt and the other parties agree on ASAP after the referendum result is in, in order for there to be something on the law books ASAP after a referendum YES vote instead on sitting there with their mouths open like a shower of goms. Dare I say: even the most ardent of Pro-Lifers would be rightfully angered with Oireachtas if there was nothing around at all for their interest and for once be of like mind with Pro-choice people.

On the issue of specific foul-ups like FFA, there is not a hope in hell of getting specifics like that in the constitution. Hell, it'd be a gateway for people wanting other nature's foul-ups like Downes Syndrome entered for protection in the constitution with Ref's coming along on like health issues regularly. Nature has a habit of reminding us we're a class example of designed obsolescence.

Part of what I wrote above is because of another article in the Examiner today with TD's from the Govt side fretting about a situation arising where there'd be insufficient Govt and other party Oireachtas members in favour of and able to carry the Govt legisltion over into law. It may be an attempt to scare the bejasus out of lingerers and post-sitters.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

implantation is when life begins and when humanity begins. it becomes a baby before 12 weeks however.

Is there any science behind the implantation business, or is it just personal opinion?

And yes, I know that is the reading that case law now makes of the 8th, but the relevant judgment (about a woman wanting to use embryos after a marriage break up iirc) found that implantation could safely be taken as the point from which the 8th takes effect simply because the 8th came from the will of the people to ban abortion, and not to ban IVF. Not because it was scientifically sound.

But I'm not aware of implantation being considered as the start of life in any well known scientific explanation. Are you?

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

implantation is when life begins and when humanity begins. it becomes a baby before 12 weeks however.

How are you defining "baby" then. What are the exact attributes that come online in those 12 weeks that fulfil that definition?

What "begins" at implantation that was not there moments before? Given that the zygote is only one stage in a cyclical life cycle process what aspect of "life" is it that "begins" at that point exactly.

And given "life" is all over the planet, and we kill it for food, paper, peace, health or even entertainment on an almost daily basis..... what are the attributes "life" must have before it suddenly obtains the moral and ethical concerns, and rights, you wish to ascribe it. And which of those attributes you list (hah, as if you are going to) does the fetus actually have.

Or are you going to dodge and ignore ALL those questions once again, like you do every time, and simply make a vague appeal to "taxonomy" and the circular argument that has failed every time you have been asked before?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

How are you defining "baby" then. What are the exact attributes that come online in those 12 weeks that fulfil that definition?

What "begins" at implantation that was not there moments before? Given that the zygote is only one stage in a cyclical life cycle process what aspect of "life" is it that "begins" at that point exactly.

And given "life" is all over the planet, and we kill it for food, paper, peace, health or even entertainment on an almost daily basis..... what are the attributes "life" must have before it suddenly obtains the moral and ethical concerns, and rights, you wish to ascribe it. And which of those attributes you list (hah, as if you are going to) does the fetus actually have.

Or are you going to dodge and ignore ALL those questions once again, like you do every time, and simply make a vague appeal to "taxonomy" and the circular argument that has failed every time you have been asked before?

all this was answered ages ago. none of my arguments have failed as they are 100% sound unlike those put forward by those in favour of abortion on demand.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

all this was answered ages ago. none of my arguments have failed as they are 100% sound unlike those put forward by those in favour of abortion on demand.

So as predicted, not answering ANY of the questions I just asked. Simply pretending you did before when you demonstrably did not.

You just don't have an answer do you. Just non-statements like the one above that are not even remotely true at any part.

I will ask again, since I have never gotten this answer from you despite pretence after pretence that I have:

How are you defining "baby" then. What are the exact attributes that come online in those 12 weeks that fulfil that definition?

What "begins" at implantation that was not there moments before? Given that the zygote is only one stage in a cyclical life cycle process what aspect of "life" is it that "begins" at that point exactly.

And given "life" is all over the planet, and we kill it for food, paper, peace, health or even entertainment on an almost daily basis..... what are the attributes "life" must have before it suddenly obtains the moral and ethical concerns, and rights, you wish to ascribe it. And which of those attributes you list (hah, as if you are going to) does the fetus actually have.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

all this was answered ages ago. none of my arguments have failed as they are 100% sound unlike those put forward by those in favour of abortion on demand.

You certainly have not given any evidence that life is generally considered by science to begin at implantation. You can't have, because it's quite clearly not true. What begins at implantation is a pregnancy, but the embryo itself doesn't form at implantation, that would be like saying the wheat grain is formed when the famer plants it.

end of the road wrote: »

all this was answered ages ago. none of my arguments have failed as they are 100% sound unlike those put forward by those in favour of abortion on demand.

By all after UNLIKE, I take it you include those amongst us who would allow women the right to choose YES or NO on having an abortion. Remember that you also fit into that category by way of allowing women that right to choose in medical cases like FFA. You are still ignoring the fact that abortion is by request, not demand. Yiou are misleading people by using the word "demand".

Before you reply, remember there are women who CHOOSE not to have an abortion [when the choice is given them] and continue with their pregnancies rejecting medical necessity advice knowing they were risking their lives by so doing.

Don't bother saying their babies were born safely and well as the women were not to know that. Such an outcome is NOT relevant to the womens choice as such safe-birth knowledge could only have been gained in hindsight, after the birth.

end of the road wrote: »

of course it's about saving the unborn. however it was correct to point out that there is a difference between facilitated in and facilitated by.

Semantics, there is no functional difference.

end of the road wrote: »

yes, but there are no guarantees that won't change long term.

So abortion on demand won't be the order of the day then.

end of the road wrote: »

implantation is when life begins and when humanity begins. it becomes a baby before 12 weeks however.

So, for the nth time, answer my question:
Do you think that all miscarriages should be investigated like any other sudden death?

aloyisious wrote: »

By all after UNLIKE, I take it you include those amongst us who would allow women the right to choose YES or NO on having an abortion. Remember that you also fit into that category by way of allowing women that right to choose in medical cases like FFA. You are still ignoring the fact that abortion is by request, not demand. Yiou are misleading people by using the word "demand".

Before you reply, remember there are women who CHOOSE not to have an abortion [when the choice is given them] and continue with their pregnancies rejecting medical necessity advice knowing they were risking their lives by so doing.

Don't bother saying their babies were born safely and well as the women were not to know that. Such an outcome is NOT relevant to the womens choice as such safe-birth knowledge could only have been gained in hindsight, after the birth.

it's not that i'm giving those women a choice, it's recognition that it's of medical necessity that they have the abortion. even then that abortion is still ultimately wrong, it's simply a case of extreme necessity. but i would not vote to allow it when it means abortion on demand will be brought in . for me stopping abortion on demand is more important. and i don't agree there is anything wrong with calling it abortion on demand, it's abortion for no reasons up all be it up to 12 weeks that is proposed.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So abortion on demand won't be the order of the day then.

yes it will. and chances are the term limit will have to rise long term to satisfy those complaining about still having to travel to england. that is why i'm voting no, and am prowd to do so given the unfortunate proposals put forward by the government. even if repeal wins, i know i will have done my bit and tried to keep abortion on demand out of ireland and i will be prowd to have tried.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

it's not that i'm giving those women a choice, it's recognition that it's of medical necessity that they have the abortion. even then that abortion is still ultimately wrong, it's simply a case of extreme necessity. but i would not vote to allow it when it means abortion on demand will be brought in . for me stopping abortion on demand is more important. and i don't agree there is anything wrong with calling it abortion on demand, it's abortion for no reasons up all be it up to 12 weeks that is proposed.

yes it will. and chances are the term limit will have to rise long term to satisfy those complaining about still having to travel to england. that is why i'm voting no, and am prowd to do so given the unfortunate proposals put forward by the government. even if repeal wins, i know i will have done my bit and tried to keep abortion on demand out of ireland and i will be prowd to have tried.

i'm not sure what pride there is in causing unnecessary suffering to another human being.

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i'm not sure what pride there is in causing unnecessary suffering to another human being.

Also not sure what pride there is in dodging uncomfortable questions like he's doing...

david75

You love talking in extremes that are never going to happen EOTR, so I’ll reply in kind.
The youngest pregnancy on record In Ireland I could find was a 12 year old girl.

So if you vote against repealing the 8th, you’re effectively forcing a child to give birth, should this happen again. And it seems to from time to time.

Don’t know how you can in good conscience support forcing a child that young to carry a baby(as you so often insist it is) to term.

Loafing Oaf

david75 wrote: »

You love talking in extremes that are never going to happen EOTR, so I’ll reply in kind.
The youngest pregnancy on record In Ireland I could find was a 12 year old girl.

So if you vote against repealing the 8th, you’re effectively forcing a child to give birth, should this happen again. And it seems to from time to time.

Don’t know how you can in good conscience support forcing a child that young to carry a baby(as you so often insist it is) to term.

In fairness, if he said he was okay with abortion in such cases, pro-choice posters on here would be asking why is it acceptable for the 'baby' to be killed in this instance.

david75

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

In fairness, if he said he was okay with abortion in such cases, pro-choice posters on here would be asking why is it acceptable for the 'baby' to be killed in this instance.

The poster in questions position lurches wildly and inconsistently depending on his mood it seems. Ignoring well made arguments and Contradicting his own position when he does decide to reply. This will be no different.