The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Undividual wrote: »

kylith wrote: »

Undividual wrote: »

Maybe there will be a population imbalance if we include all your strawmen. 

I never said this would happen immediately.  Nor that Ireland would enact a one child policy.  What I did say was that I don't think it will be an Irish problem, but that it could an issue if people from outside of Ireland decide to do this.  I am not arguing against repealing the 8th.  Anyone whose opinion would be swayed by potential homosexual activity has their own problems to deal with.

Why I keep having to refer to my own posts, I don't know.

If you don’t think it will be an Irish problem then why did you bring it up?

Because Chinese and Indian people live here and may not share my views on sex selection.

I cant see how you are ever going to be able to know the thought processes and motivations of other people (or even why you should). It seems to be that your concern is with abortion on Irish soil rather than abortion in general. Are you the poster who supports the right to travel as it would be inconvenient otherwise for pregnant women falling under suspicion or do I have you confused with somebody else?

There are consequences and "social outcomes" to banning abortion too you know. In other developing countries with no access to abortion, a teenage woman aged 15-19 dies of pregnancy or childbirth related complications every 20 minutes. It is even more horrific for younger girls, whose bodies are simply not developed enough to carry children, with awful consequences even where they survive (fistulas, broken pelvis). I think in Nigeria alone there are something like 20,000 fistula cases a year. Are those the kinds of social outcomes you are comfortable enough with?

Apologies for the delay in replying. It only just occured to me now, without your use of the quote function, that this reply might have been directed to me.

Undividual wrote: »

In relation to China/India, my point is that we may need to deal with these issues in the future.

I see absolutely no reason to think it all that likely to be honest. We simply do not have the same attitudes and economics around women that are prevalent in the societies you have mentioned.

However even if I applied the quantity of imagination required to engage in the thought experiment of us having to deal with something of that nature in the future I would still have a "Cross that bridge if we come to it" attitude to it. I see it as neither likely enough OR relevant enough to consider it a relevant argument against doing the right thing here and now in the present.

I am by no means against future proofing while making decisions, and considering future possibilities. But one can not account for EVERY possibility so I think it warranted to apply some coherent and credible threshold of likelihood and relevance to such a list.

Undividual wrote: »

If a Chinese/Indian (or any) woman living in Ireland chooses to have an abortion based upon the child's gender, is that right / acceptable?

It depends what you mean by right and acceptable. The analogy I often use is a simple one but it highlights what I mean here:

I believe firmly in your right to drink coca cola. Now tomorrow you might decide to start drinking 4 or 5 litres a day with the goal of getting obese and sick (diabetes maybe?) enough to claim disability allowance or some such.

I would not think your motivations are moral and I would condemn them. But I would STILL believe in your right to freedom of drinking coca cola.

Similarly I believe women should have the choice of accessing abortion within certain time frames. And I believe most women will do so conscientiously and with pure motives. There will of course be some small number of people who access it for immoral or questionable reasons however. Reasons I might condemn as immoral and horrific. But so what?

We have to do what we believe is right, and not give in to a minority few who would abuse it. If we did that, we would change NOTHING in our society of any note, because there is always someone somewhere that will abuse a system. We see it in tax. We see it in social welfare. We see it in consumer rights. We see it in means tested benefits. Every "right" move we make gets abused by SOMEONE. We should still do what is right however.

Undividual wrote: »

Also, is consciousness the measurement of human life?  There are certainly people alive who will never be conscious again.

Yes there are. Which is why we have deep and sometimes divisive conversations on issues like the right to die, euthanasia, and medical proxy for such people who are compromised in that way. And legal battles over when it is acceptable to deprive them of life support technology.

Again however I think that is not a useful comparison or relevant to this discussion because you are still comparing someone who HAS the faculty of sentience and consciousness, even if it is operating in a diminished or minimal or compromised capacity........... with an entity (the fetus) that has not got it, has never had it, and is some time off the cusp of getting it for the first time.

I simply see no way therefore to force a comparison there, no matter how hard one pushes it. They simply are not the same thing.

“Because Chinese and Indian people live here and may not share my views on sex selection.“

Well, you can’t definitively tell sex at 12 weeks, so anyone wanting a sex-selective abortion would still have to go to the UK like they currently Do.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, my wife's life has more worth than an 8 week fetus. Most people with partners would agree, I think.

So the 8th is wrong and has to go.

Thank you Zubeneschamali


I beseech any partners of women to think about if you are in hospital with your partner who needs treatment which can't be administered because of an 8 week foetus. Who do you choose?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This isn't about the right for women to do what the want with "their" bodies. This is about the right for women to be able to do what they want with another body. That of their developing young. Here's a real woman. A woman excited by the baby moving (and not just autonomically) inside her. A woman not wanting to kill it in the name of women's rights

Is this video supposed to appeal to my uterus? I don’t get the point of it. And also, don’t be daft, women don’t want to “kill babies in the name of women’s rights” (to paraphrase).

Of course many women are delighted with their pregnancy. The fact also remains that there is a not insignificant cohort of women who do not WANT to be pregnant, which may include financial, medical, work or personal reasons. And I believe that these women have a right to choose. I don’t believe in their rights being suppressed because they happen to be pregnant.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The irony in these posts, honestly.

First of all, those who are against abortion are not just men, and so what's all this nonsense about men wanting to control women all about? For me comments like that are really masks slipping. Is the desire for the right to abort healthy fetuses really just about getting back at men? For some, sadly, it would seem it is.

Secondly, and more importantly, this whole nonsense about control itself is laughable and shows a total lack of self awareness on the part of those who are prochoice. Let's not forget, that the choice you all want to have, includes (and represents 95%+ of those who generally procure abortions in western countries - not that you'd think it reading these threads) the choice for healthy women (who are pregnant from consensual sex) to able to legally have the baby in their womb pulled limb from limb, have it's skull crushed, heartbeat stilled and it's bloody broken remains binned (or sold, depending on where you live). Now, tell me, who's "controlling" who there?

This isn't about the right for women to do what the want with "their" bodies. This is about the right for women to be able to do what they want with another body. That of their developing young. Here's a real woman. A woman excited by the baby moving (and not just autonomically) inside her. A woman not wanting to kill it in the name of women's

Firstly: a foetus is not another body. Though genetically distinct it is surrounded by, encompassed by, fed by, and completely reliant on the woman’s body for 24 weeks. As she should have the final decision about what happens her body, if she decides to withdraw support of the foetus that should be her right. She should not be compelled to have her body support it just as she is not compelled to donate organs or tissue.

Secondly: a 12 week foetus does not have a brain. It cannot think or feel. It simply does not have the neural connections to. It does not feel pain. It is not in the slightest bit discomforted by a termination. Somewhere in the region of 40% of pregnancies spontaneously abort by 12 weeks.

Thirdly: what you describe in detail is a surgical abortion. Those do not occur before 12 weeks and as such your appeal to emotion is not relevant to repealing the 8th.

Ismisejack wrote: »

You were waiting to say that. Well there is nothing progressive about abortion, it is killing, simple as that. Allowing the Irish government power regards abortion laws on the event the eighth is repealed is frightening!! That means no referendum would be needed to allow for abortion on demand. There’s nothing progressive or proud about that

Any chance you could answer my question?

Ismisejack wrote: »

You were waiting to say that. Well there is nothing progressive about abortion, it is killing, simple as that.

Pouring bleach down your toilet is "killing". You want to say that it is "murder", surely?

It's not, but you need to be consistent.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And of course today they mostly DO have a right to choose. We even put it in the Constitution by referendum.

But because we are a bunch of hypocrites, the right to choose is disguised as a right to "travel and information". Information about abortion which without the 14th amendment was illegal. A right to travel to England specifically for an abortion in the 13th amendment, and yes, it is specifically for abortion or it would not be an exception under 40.3.3

But there are women who cannot travel - they are in prison, or Direct Provision, or already in hospital, or in a relationship which won't allow it, or just too broke to find a thousand euros...

They are the women we usually only know as letters: X, Y and so on.

The homeless, the poor, the vulnerable- for whom pregnancy and childbirth are riskier and serve as one more crushing weight keeping them on the lowest rung of the ladder, forever.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"Love both", right? What a joke.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Haha you must have missed the posts by the user who said that abortion KEEPS Them on the lowest rung of the ladder forever. Because not having to have babies they do not want, does not force them to better themselves and take themselves off that rung.

Essentially the Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu approach to social betterment. Keep them suffering, withholding alleviation of suffering, and the suffering will lead them to elevate themselves.

So yea, the user in question basically telling us that abortion is actually a means to keep the poor poor, the the lower classes lower, because only by having babies will they ever be motivated to do more, and be more.

that took me a second

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Haha you must have missed the posts by the user who said that abortion KEEPS Them on the lowest rung of the ladder forever. Because not having to have babies they do not want, does not force them to better themselves and take themselves off that rung. And in fact the user also thought this was improved by removing social welfare, including child allowances and single parent allowances, from them too.

Essentially the Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu approach to social betterment. Keep them suffering, withholding alleviation of suffering, and the suffering will lead them to elevate themselves.

So yea, the user in question basically telling us that abortion is actually a means to keep the poor poor, the the lower classes lower, because only by having babies they do not want, and doing so without social welfare and financial aid, will they ever be motivated to do more, and be more.

Hitchens had her number alright. Nasty.