The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is one of those "Check your privilege at the door" things I am afraid. Many people can not simply travel when it comes to abortion. They can not afford the time, the time off work, the money, the loss of earnings, or much more. Many people already have children they can not simply leave. And many people do not want to face such a journey alone, or an abortion alone, and so want.... nay need.... to take someone with them. Which doubles all the issues I list above.

Further those people who seek an abortion for other reasons during an otherwise wanted pregnancy, often find those reasons preclude ease of travel. If there is a medical issue for example the last thing one wants, and often the last think one is capable of, is travel.

Worse, if there are any complications from the abortion the woman in question might be en route back to Ireland and therefore in no position to seek medical advice. Or they might BE back in Ireland when the complications occur.... and have to go to a doctor who knows nothing of the medical history and events involved.

Perhaps you simply popped over to London or something sometime in your life for a concert or some such. I know I did many times, especially in college when I saw 9 david gray gigs in 7 days around the entire UK for example. But I know my privilege and I know it does not compare to the hardships of others. And just because a jaunt to london is simple for me, I do not assume it is for others with entirely different medical, ethical, financial, familial, and resource concerns in play. So you shouldn't either.

Perhaps I worked there for two years, I found parts of London very racist, intolerant and indeed troublesome for Irish immigrants.
Racism was rife in it in my experience.

Edward M wrote: »

Perhaps I worked there for two years, I found parts of London very racist, intolerant and indeed troublesome for Irish immigrants.
Racism was rife in it in my experience.

So I guess you can add that also to the list of reasons why it is not as simple as "Ah sure ya just have to travel a bit" as a response to the concerns of which we speak.

Edward M wrote: »

But that's intolerance, that still exists, abortion won't change that.

On the contrary. Giving people more autonomy and choices over their own situations very much does help them in combating, dealing with, or even ending forms of intolerance.

ohnonotgmail

markodaly wrote: »

We amended the Constitution to get rid of capital punishment, did we not? See Criminal law.

Most of our human rights legalisation has been imported from the EU, we have had no say in it.

markodaly wrote: »

Em, yes we did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i stand corrected.

I'm going to row back on this because my memory of the 21st amendment was a little hazy. The 21st amendment did not get rid of capital punishment. There was no constitutional amendment required to get rid of capital punishment. Capital punishment had already been abolished in 1990 by statute. The 21st amendment prevents the government from reintoducing capital punishment.

ohnonotgmail

Edward M wrote: »

But why, I mean where did they come from?
I had a child with my first partner in the 80s, in rural Cavan, we lived together for 4 years after the child was born, we had no problems or our daughter either.
I really would like to know where in this wasn't possible at that time?

dublin 1987. My sister was pressurised to get married by both families to get married when she became pregnant. Just because it didnt happen to you it is willfully ignorant to think it didnt happen to others.

Aborting babies doesent end intolerance.
Intolerance is a systemic societal failure, the need for abortion is one too.
I know plenty single mothers, I don't know one I've ever heard of being ostracised, punished or made leave where she is from because of it.
I think a lot are making out that the attitudes in Ireland are still the same as the last century to suit their argument.
What part of Ireland are you posters referring to here, I know that is not the case where I live anymore anyway.

In 1985 (dublin) my aunt went home and told her parents (my grandparents) she was pregnant. First she was asked when's the wedding. Second she was driven down to the church to meet with the parish priest.

*This isn't about abortion. Just an illustration of the Ireland not too long back

Edit.
Ps. My aunt went on to not marry the father, and have my cousin. With a lot of support from.siblings. My grandparents finally came round to the little baby.

Edward M wrote: »

Aborting babies doesent end intolerance.

No one said it does. Read what I wrote again. I will use underline to help you parse it this time:

Giving people more autonomy and choices over their own situations very much does help them in combating, dealing with, or even ending forms of intolerance.

Intolerance, like bullying, is often exercised on easy and/or visible targets. Like Minorities. The more choice and autonomy an individual, or group, have the more tools they have to combat, and sometimes even end, that dynamic.

Edward M wrote: »

I know plenty single mothers, I don't know one I've ever heard of being ostracised, punished or made leave where she is from because of it.

They say anecdote is not evidence. I would say a LACK of anecdote is even less so. Just because no one YOU know has suffered this dynamic does not mean no one ever does. I myself have positive anecdote of it, even if you do not. But I tend to offer anecdote to describe evidence, never AS evidence.

I'm not offering it as evidence, I'm just conversing.

amdublin wrote: »

In 1985 (dublin) my aunt went home and told her parents (my grandparents) she was pregnant. First she was asked when's the wedding. Second she was driven down to the church to meet with the parish priest.

*This isn't about abortion. Just an illustration of the Ireland not too long back

Edit.
Ps. My aunt went on to not marry the father, and have my cousin. With a lot of support from.siblings. My grandparents finally came round to the little baby.

I can easily understand that amdublin.
You know the way people sympathise with someone on a family death, like down here we shake their hand at the wake or at the church, we say either, sorry for your loss, or sorry for your troubles, that's just the way we do it.
When news got out at home that we were expecting our baby that time, our next door neighbours went in to my parents house at home, shook their hands and said, sorry to hear about your troubles.
My old man was a bit of a character, he just smiled and said, it was no trouble to us at all.
My mother and father weren't thrilled by the pregnancy, but never offered us anything but support, same the other side too.
I know we were lucky that way, there were two of us involved, but abortion never entered the equation, in fact the first time she told me she was pregnant my partners words were, I'm pregnant, if you don't like it tough, but I'm having the baby.

Choice is good Edward M.

If a woman wants to continue her pregnancy (for wahtever reason) then great, if she doesnt (for whatever reason) fine. Abortion happens every day for Irish women - abroad in the UK or taking pills in unsafe circumstance (not under medical care or advice)

Abortion is a personal decision for each person to make themselves.

Let's end this farce and way of treating women once and for all.

amdublin wrote: »

Choice is good Edward M.

If a woman wants to continue her pregnancy (for wahtever reason) then great, if she doesnt (for whatever reason) fine. Abortion happens every day for Irish women - abroad in the UK or taking pills in unsafe circumstance (not under medical care or advice)

Abortion is a personal decision for each person to make themselves.

Let's end this farce and way of treating women once and for all.

But I can't get the baby out of my head in the middle of all that.

Edward M wrote: »

But I can't get the baby out of my head in the middle of all that.

I can't get it out of my head that you have said you will vote yes to repeal.

Yet you throw out things like this every now again (a complete and utter probirther line, let's call a spade a spade)

retro:electro

Edward M wrote: »

But I can't get the baby out of my head in the middle of all that.

The “baby” is out of your control regardless of a successful repeal or not, as many women would likely be going across the water anyway.
You can make their lives a little bit easier though by ensuring they don’t have to leave their country to seek medical help.

amdublin wrote: »

I can't get it out of my head that you have said you will vote yes to repeal.

Yet you throw out things like this every now again (a complete and utter probirther line, let's call a spade a spade)

I know, that's the way I see it though.
I don't place the baby's right to life above or even equal to the mothers, the mothers health should always be primary, if she's raped or incestuously abused
But I do place the baby's right to life above the woman's choice if her health isn't compromised.

PhoenixParker

Edward M wrote: »

But I can't get the baby out of my head in the middle of all that.

Would you go through an 8 month procedure to donate an organ to a real live human being who won't survive without it?

For the first three months you take a pill that makes you vomit daily, feel exhausted. Your performance at work will be affected but convention is you don't tell anyone.

Then you move to a second set of medication. This results in weight gain of 10-15kg on average, causes frequent urination, difficulty sleeping, difficulty walking. You may get symptoms like not being able to walk for more than ten minutes due to hip pain, high blood pressure, diabetes which could well persist after the operation. You may end up hospitalised for days or weeks but either way you'll have frequent appointments resulting in missing work.

Then you'll go in for the operation. If you're lucky it'll go smoothly and they'll manage it by sticking a thick tube up your penis. It'll probably rip it a little but anaesthetic is discouraged. If that's not suitable you'll have major abdominal surgery and a six week driving ban. The government will pay you €270/week to cover all your expenses while you recover.

Would you do all that (and more) to save the life of a real life, living human being with a family and friends?

More importantly do you believe the government has the right to compel everybody in the country from 13 year olds to single parents struggling with young kids to go through that?

If not, why would you force someone to do it for a foetus?

Edward M wrote: »

But I do place the baby's right to life above the woman's choice if her health isn't compromised.

When women CHOOSE to abort, as opposed to doing so for medical or other reasons that compel them..... they almost entirely do so before the fetus reaches week 12. Consistently over 90% in country after country. By week 16 the % has risen to 98% or higher.

Upon what basis do you argue that any such fetus should have a "right to life" in the first place?

What is it that the government, citizens assembly, 1000s after 1000s of our citizens, and many countries around the world.... and me..... are missing here?

I have asked, and asked, and asked this question of person after person and I get nearly nothing in reply. Except some vague appeals to Taxonomy that generally turn out to be a precursor to the speaker running away from the conversation.

Ave Sodalis

Edward M wrote: »

I know plenty single mothers, I don't know one I've ever heard of being ostracised, punished or made leave where she is from because of it.

Just on this, my mother in the early 90s had people knocking on her door trying to take me from her because she was a single, teenage mother. And I say her door because she was not living my grandparents house.

Being a single parent is tough. They may not try and take the child off the parent anymore, but that doesn't mean it's easy. Just a quick glance through this very forum will show you that the crappy attitudes towards single mothers have not disappeared, they just can't do as much about it. Being a single parent is doable, but I completely understand why someone would not want to go ahead with a pregnancy if it meant being a single mother at the end of it.

Edward M wrote: »

I know, that's the way I see it though.
I don't place the baby's right to life above or even equal to the mothers, the mothers health should always be primary, if she's raped or incestuously abused
But I do place the baby's right to life above the woman's choice if her health isn't compromised.

If the woman got pregnant through rape your ok with it.
If she got pregnant through just having a good old time having sex you're not?

A. It feels like you're shaming a woman for having sex
B. This feels like we're heading back to that awful rape committee monstrosity that was mooted a few pages back on this thread

Will you ever mind your own business about how a woman got pregnant and let her make own mind up what she does with her own body.

anna080 wrote: »

The “baby” is out of your control regardless of a successful repeal or not, as many women would likely be going across the water anyway.
You can make their lives a little bit easier though by ensuring they don’t have to leave their country to seek medical help.

I'm voting repeal anna, but I'm hoping for a scenario to develop, like the independent suggested today, that legislation might only pass on certain conditions, not free choice.
I had originally considered not voting at all, but the eighth is dangerous in its own way too.
I don't want any woman denied necessary medical treatment because she is pregnant.
If abortion on demand is then legislated for then I feel I can live with that, even though I don't agree with it, but as you say if a woman really wants it it will happen regardless of whether its here or not.
I'm only expressing my views, but I wouldn't be honest if I said I believed in free choice in all situations.
I regard myself as pro life despite voting for repeal.

splinter65

pilly wrote: »

Of course it will Edward, because women won't be left alone with a child they don't want.

Don't act all naive now because we know you're not.

If you don’t want a baby you give it up for adoption and walk away.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

When women CHOOSE to abort, as opposed to doing so for medical or other reasons that compel them..... they almost entirely do so before the fetus reaches week 12. Consistently over 90% in country after country. By week 16 the % has risen to 98% or higher.

Upon what basis do you argue that any such fetus should have a "right to life" in the first place?

What is it that the government, citizens assembly, 1000s after 1000s of our citizens, and many countries around the world.... and me..... are missing here?

I have asked, and asked, and asked this question of person after person and I get nearly nothing in reply. Except some vague appeals to Taxonomy that generally turn out to be a precursor to the speaker running away from the conversation.

What did the citizens assembly recommend?