Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

J C · 29-03-2018 11:30PM

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Certainly isn't a blastocyst at 10 weeks though is it?!

... or at 12 weeks, which is the proposed limit for killing her on demand ... or 23 weeks when it is proposed to kill her because she is affecting her mother's health (and she isn't viable, just yet).

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2018 11:31PM

J C wrote: »

There is a government policy to have a tobacco free Ireland by 2025.
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/TobaccoFreeIreland.pdf

There are also policies for greater control and a reduction in alcohol consumption ... which strikes the right balance IMO ... because responsible alcohol consumed has no adverse effects.

Where is and has the campaign to prohibit the 'choosing' of tobacco been from those who think they can prevent choice for women?

It is hypocritical in the extreme, saying that we know tobacco kills.

J C · 29-03-2018 11:38PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where is and has the campaign to prohibit the 'choosing' of tobacco been from those who think they can prevent choice for women?

It is hypocritical in the extreme, saying that we know tobacco kills.

Tobacco kills ... and it is planned to eliminate the killing by 2025, in Ireland.

Abortion kills ... and the plan is to 'open the floodgates' for this form of killing, in Ireland this year.

The hypocrisy is very clear allright.

volchitsa · 30-03-2018 05:55AM

J C wrote: »

Tobacco kills ... and it is planned to eliminate the killing by 2025, in Ireland.

Abortion kills ... and the plan is to 'open the floodgates' for this form of killing, in Ireland this year.

The hypocrisy is very clear allright.

A girl of 14 who had been raped died giving birth recently. If she had lived in a country that allowed abortion before her life was at risk, she would still be alive.

Tobacco is never needed to save someone, unlike abortion. So are prolife calling for a 14 year prison sentence for anyone who sells tobacco?

Are they heck. Hypocrisy, you say? Yes indeed.

J C · 30-03-2018 08:25AM

volchitsa wrote: »

A girl of 14 who had been raped died giving birth recently. If she had lived in a country that allowed abortion before her life was at risk, she would still be alive.

Tobacco is never needed to save someone, unlike abortion. So are prolife calling for a 14 year prison sentence for anyone who sells tobacco?

Are they heck. Hypocrisy, you say? Yes indeed.

There is already abortion legislation for where a mother's life is at risk.

How did this girl die?

... and pro-life people want all killing to stop ... whatever the cause.

... and that includes needless deaths from tobacco, pregnancy and abortion.

However, death is an ever present reality ... people go into hospital all the time ... and don't come out alive ... for all kinds of reasons.

Killing thousands of perfectly healthy unborn children being carried by thousands of perfectly healthy women isn't a solution, to the tiny minority of maternal deaths that occur ... and the proof of this is that there are also maternal deaths in every country where abortion is freely available, that are the roughly the same as Ireland.

Quote (maternal deaths per 100,000 live births):-
153 UNITED KINGDOM 9 2015 EST.
154 SLOVENIA 9 2015 EST.
155 MALTA 9 2015 EST.
156 IRELAND 8 2015 EST.
157 MACEDONIA 8 2015 EST.
158 CROATIA 8 2015 EST.
159 FRANCE 8 2015 EST.
160 BELGIUM 7 2015 EST.

FrancieBrady · 30-03-2018 08:30AM

J C wrote: »

There is already abortion legislation for where a mother's life is at risk.

How did this girl die?

... and pro-life people want all killing to stop ... whatever the cause.

... and that includes needless deaths from tobacco, pregnancy and abortion.

And you were asked, based on the beliefs you have expressed - are the doctors carrying out that abortion committing murder by taking a 'Human Life'?

Or does that 'Human Life' status regress because the mother's life is at risk?

Kunkka · 30-03-2018 08:33AM

I will be voting to repeal but I am seriously concerned that it might not pass. There is militant opinions on both sides, there is no doubt about it, but I feel there is more ferocity on the appeal side, especially on social media. I have watched people give their reasons for not wanting to repeal online and they get completely annihilated from all angles with some serious abuse, it does happen on the other side but not to the same extent. I understand this is because this is a seriously polarizing issue, especially for women or their families who have gone through serious trauma due to the current constitution.

I think the opinion and values of people on both sides needs to be respected. People need the right to having an opinion, even if we are totally and fundamentally against it, we need to hold our tongue. For every person that is told how horrible they are for voting not to repeal and to change their values, you are completely losing their chance of voting to repeal and others watching on who are on the fence that don't like the militant nature of this approach. It has been proven with Trump, Brexit and other campaigns across the world over the last few years, people do not like being told what to do or what to believe in. Nothing good can come from forcing an opinion on someone, be constructive and articulate to try to get them to see things from another perspective if that's what you want to do, especially with this referendum as for some people this will require a total change of their values which requires a friendly approach. This is too important to care so much about being right.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-03-2018 10:49AM

Kunkka wrote: »

People need the right to having an opinion, even if we are totally and fundamentally against it, we need to hold our tongue.

That seems somewhat contradictory to me. People should have a right to their opinion but some people with certain opinions need to keep it to themselves?

Either people have a right to express their opinion or they do not. Telling some people they can, while telling other people they need to keep quiet..... is something else entirely.

But I disagree with you that opinions need to be respected. They do not. Arguments, evidence, data and reasoning need to be respected and considered deeply. People who merely express opinions, not so much. And aside from shouting the word "Human" A lot, I am not seeing any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning supporting the notion that a 12 week old fetus should be worthy of rights, or moral and ethical concern.

volchitsa · 30-03-2018 11:34AM

J C wrote: »

There is already abortion legislation for where a mother's life is at risk.

Except when nobody notices except the dying woman herself, and who cares what she wants, right?

Ask an Indian lady living in Galway... oh no you can't, I forgot.

J C wrote: »

How did this girl die?

At a guess, because nobody noticed the point at which it was no longer "just" her health that was at risk?

And then it was too late.

Not like we havent been there ourselves is it?

As for all the rest, what matters more, that we have a meaningless feelgood ban on abortion (since thousands of Irish women have abortions every year) or that we take women's health seriously, and stop putting it second to some meaningless principle that not even its own supporters take seriously enough to really put into practice?

J C · 30-03-2018 05:09PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you were asked, based on the beliefs you have expressed - are the doctors carrying out that abortion committing murder by taking a 'Human Life'?

Or does that 'Human Life' status regress because the mother's life is at risk?

Where only one human life can be saved it should be saved. The fact that the other human life is extinguished, doesn't 'regress' its humanity ... and it isn't murder to kill, in accordance with law.

FrancieBrady · 30-03-2018 05:17PM

J C wrote: »

Where only one human life can be saved it should be saved. The fact that the other human life is extinguished, doesn't 'regress' its humanity ... and it isn't murder to kill, in accordance with law.

Sorry, that is just self serving.

The doctor makes a decision to end a 'Human Life'. He chooses which one lives.

J C · 30-03-2018 05:32PM

Kunkka wrote: »

I will be voting to repeal but I am seriously concerned that it might not pass. There is militant opinions on both sides, there is no doubt about it, but I feel there is more ferocity on the appeal side, especially on social media. I have watched people give their reasons for not wanting to repeal online and they get completely annihilated from all angles with some serious abuse, it does happen on the other side but not to the same extent. I understand this is because this is a seriously polarizing issue, especially for women or their families who have gone through serious trauma due to the current constitution.

I think the opinion and values of people on both sides needs to be respected. People need the right to having an opinion, even if we are totally and fundamentally against it, we need to hold our tongue. For every person that is told how horrible they are for voting not to repeal and to change their values, you are completely losing their chance of voting to repeal and others watching on who are on the fence that don't like the militant nature of this approach. It has been proven with Trump, Brexit and other campaigns across the world over the last few years, people do not like being told what to do or what to believe in. Nothing good can come from forcing an opinion on someone, be constructive and articulate to try to get them to see things from another perspective if that's what you want to do, especially with this referendum as for some people this will require a total change of their values which requires a friendly approach. This is too important to care so much about being right.

You make a lot of sense. In fairness, the campaign has been pretty respectful (on both sides) up to now. That is the only way that freedom of speech can be upheld ... by speaking respectfully.
I even detect a 'holding back' by some on the repeal side ... for example, a very strident feminist, who historically was deeply caustic in her comments about the issue (and the pro-life position), was all 'sweetness and light' the other day.
I think that there is also a 'maturity' developing in the debate on the issue ... with each side realizing that its not all 'black and white' ... and that neither side has a monopoly of wisdom or right on the issue.
On one side, many pro-life people accept that you would need the wisdom of Solomon to morally and ethically negotiate (and do the right thing) with some hard cases.
... and on the pro-repeal side, many people recognize that we are dealing with Human life, at its most vulnerable ... and the attitude of 'Its my body and my right to do as I like with my unborn child' is not acceptable.

Kunkka wrote: »

This is too important to care so much about being right.

Quite true ... and I think both sides are starting to realize this ... for different reasons.

J C · 30-03-2018 05:45PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, that is just self serving.

The doctor makes a decision to end a 'Human Life'. He chooses which one lives.

How is it self-serving?

... and the doctor doesn't choose which one lives.

The doctor makes a judgement on whether the mothers life is at risk ... if it is at risk, from a pregnancy, that hasn't reached viability ... then there is only one logical decision ... because the choice is for both to die or the unborn child to die.

Nitrogan · 30-03-2018 05:56PM

As a male I would not accept being told what to do with my body and I don't know any who would for the sake of someone else's moral principles.

It's ridiculous in the modern age to enforce misogynistic religious dogma on people who don't believe in them.

FrancieBrady · 30-03-2018 05:58PM

J C wrote: »

How is it self-serving?

... and the doctor doesn't choose which one lives.

The doctor makes a judgement on whether the mothers life is at risk ... if it is at risk, from a pregnancy, that hasn't reached viability ... then there is only one logical decision ... because the choice is for both to die or the unborn child to die.

So why have you a problem with a doctor or a woman making the same decision/choice in other circumstances?

morphman · 30-03-2018 06:03PM

I have to say that maybe i had my head buried in the sand with regards to the 8th . I had thought that the right of any person to a choice in relation to themselves or their bodies was fundamental to their being. I came across a protest in support of the 7th today and I really felt like shouting at them. Big signs... talking about right of the unborn....followed closely by a decade of the rosary FFS. If god or any higher power wants to punish someone for making a choice let them but people can **** right off.

J C · 30-03-2018 06:08PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That seems somewhat contradictory to me. People should have a right to their opinion but some people with certain opinions need to keep it to themselves?

Either people have a right to express their opinion or they do not. Telling some people they can, while telling other people they need to keep quiet..... is something else entirely.

I don't think that Kunkka is saying that ... s/he is saying that people should express their views ... but in a respectful manner.
To effectively communicate and persuade requires our target audience to listen to us and evaluate what we are saying ... and our audience will not do this, if we personally insult them. Indeed common human decency requires everyone to treat everyone else as they would like to be treated themselves.

We can have a debate ... even a robust one ... once we leave the personal out of it and concentrate on the issues ... as has been happening, in general, on this thread. We can also learn from each other (and give each other the space to possibly change our minds) when we do this.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But I disagree with you that opinions need to be respected. They do not. Arguments, evidence, data and reasoning need to be respected and considered deeply. People who merely express opinions, not so much. And aside from shouting the word "Human" A lot,

Part of according respect to other people is respecting their opinions. This doesn't prevent us disagreeing with their opinions or pointing out any deficiencies in the opinions ... or respectfully offering an alternative way of looking at the issue.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not seeing any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning supporting the notion that a 12 week old fetus should be worthy of rights, or moral and ethical concern.

I think that arguments have been presented ... you may not accept the arguments but they have been made.
In any event, the proponents of abortion on demand up to 12 weeks need to present evidence supporting the notion that a 12 week old fetus should not be worthy of rights, or moral and ethical concern ... if they wish to convince the middle-ground that this is a good idea.

J C · 30-03-2018 06:17PM

Nitrogan wrote: »

As a male I would not accept being told what to do with my body and I don't know any who would for the sake of someone else's moral principles.

... so do you do whatever you want ... whenever you want to ... irrespective of the effect that what you do with your body has on other people?

I'll bet that you don't do this ... but instead are very conscious of not engaging in behavior that would damage others.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-03-2018 06:19PM

I think I will let the user speak for themselves thanks. But the sentence "we need to hold our tongue" is simply one I do not agree with. We need do no such thing. Nor am I about to. Despite your pretence, there is a world of difference between respecting people, and respecting opinions. I do the former, not the latter. And you conflating the two does not mean I have to pretend to.

However if you think "arguments have been presented" then by all means show me which ones. But claiming they were, does not make it so. Shifting the onus of proof will not get you there either. However I have multiple times done this on this very thread, so perhaps read the thread before you pretend otherwise. I have been VERY clear why I do not think such an entity should be afford rights.

J C · 30-03-2018 06:22PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So why have you a problem with a doctor or a woman making the same decision/choice in other circumstances?

For the same reason that I don't have a problem with law enforcement using lethal force if there is no practical alternative to save somebody whose life is being threatened by somebody else ... yet I would have serious issues with a policeperson who ran amok and started killing people for no reason other than they wanted to.

FrancieBrady · 30-03-2018 06:25PM

J C wrote: »

For the same reason that I don't have a problem with law enforcement using lethal force if there is no practical alternative to save somebody whose life is being threatened by somebody else ... yet I would have serious issues with a policeperson who ran amok and started killing people for no reason other than they wanted to.

Why do you keep reducing the debate to 'people killing people for no other reason than they wanted to'?

A bit of respect for people who find themselves in life changing positions wouldn't go amiss.

No woman would make the decision to have an abortion lightly.

J C · 30-03-2018 06:31PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think I will let the user speak for themselves thanks. But the sentence "we need to hold our tongue" is simply one I do not agree with. We need do no such thing. Nor am I about to. Despite your pretence, there is a world of difference between respecting people, and respecting opinions. I do the former, not the latter. And you conflating the two does not mean I have to pretend to.

I think that doing as you suggest is one of the reasons why 'social media' often descends into a 'bear pit' with plenty of heat and little light resulting from it.
Think about it ... does a salesperson that wants you to buy their products, start by gratuitously disrespecting your opinions?
... and if they did, what would you think the result would be?

BTW we are all 'salespersons' for our ideas ... assuming we want to convince others to adopt them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However if you think "arguments have been presented" then by all means show me which ones. But claiming they were, does not make it so. Shifting the onus of proof will not get you there either. However I have multiple times done this on this very thread, so perhaps read the thread before you pretend otherwise. I have been VERY clear why I do not think such an entity should be afford rights.

I'm new to the thread ... so I have missed that ... do you have a link please ?

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-03-2018 06:38PM

No, expressing opinions without backup, and demanding opinions be respected for no reason other than they are there, is what ruins social media. People who sit down and exchange arguments, evidence, data and reasoning much less so. I repeat, I have no respect for opinions, I have respect for arguments, evidence, data and reasoning.

If you do not want to read the thread you post on that is your concern. But I have MULTIPLE times discussed the basis of rights, and why I do not think a fetus should have any on this thread. You can read my posts on this thread if you like. Dodge them if you like. But you do not need a link, you know where the thread is.

J C · 30-03-2018 06:48PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why do you keep reducing the debate to 'people killing people for no other reason than they wanted to'?

A bit of respect for people who find themselves in life changing positions wouldn't go amiss.

No woman would make the decision to have an abortion lightly.

That would be at the extreme end of the spectrum, alright.

However, undoubtedly, some abortions on demand will be simply because the mother wants to.

... and saying that 'no woman would make the decision to have an abortion lightly' has the same validity as saying that 'no woman would make the decision to drink and drive lightly'. Quite obviously some people might make the decision to abort or drink and drive, lightly ... especially, if there was little or no legal or social constraints on doing so.

... and even if everyone didn't take the decision to abort or drink and drive, lightly ... this would have no effect on the injury or death caused to third parties, as a result of their decision.

FrancieBrady · 30-03-2018 06:51PM

J C wrote: »

That would be at the extreme end of the spectrum, alright.

However, undoubtedly, some abortions on demand will be simply because the mother wants to.

... and saying that 'no woman would make the decision to have an abortion lightly' has the same validity as saying that 'no woman would make the decision to drink and drive lightly'. Quite obviously some people might make the decision to abort or drink and drive, lightly ... especially, if there was little or no legal or social constraints on doing so.

... and even if everyone didn't take the decision to abort or drink and drive, lightly ... this would have no effect on the injury or death caused to third parties, as a result of their decision.

That is happening already, but apparently it is ok because it happens abroad or from the internet. Hypocrisy most high.

J C · 30-03-2018 07:03PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No, expressing opinions without backup, and demanding opinions be respected for no reason other than they are there, is what ruins social media. People who sit down and exchange arguments, evidence, data and reasoning much less so. I repeat, I have no respect for opinions, I have respect for arguments, evidence, data and reasoning.

Getting personal with posters in relation to themselves or their opinions is a good shortcut to a row in which, whatever points are being made are lost in the resulting heat.
It is the main reason IMO why some 'social media' could be more accurately described as 'anti-social' media.:)

I was at a conference once where the speaker described people's opinions as being regarded by them in a similar way to their children ... and if their ideas are disrespected ... it will result in the manifestation of the same emotions and behaviors that disrespecting their children would cause,

... I think that we all need to take the advice of Ali-G ... respect!!!
First and last.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you do not want to read the thread you post on that is your concern. But I have MULTIPLE times discussed the basis of rights, and why I do not think a fetus should have any on this thread. You can read my posts on this thread if you like. Dodge them if you like. But you do not need a link, you know where the thread is.

I had hoped you might have helped me by providing a link ... oh well ... I'll just have to wait unless and until the topic arises again.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-03-2018 07:08PM

You keep bringing up "personal insults" and "Getting personal". Not sure why as that is NOT what I am referring to at all. All I said was that I do not respect mere opinion. I respect and consider (if any) the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning offered with them. If you see someone being insulting, by all means take it up with them! It has nothing to do with me.

I did provide a link so lets keep the distortions of reality to a minimum. You have not returned the favour. You have just claimed reasons have been given but not shown me where. Name a thread and a user and I will look into it happily. I have named you a thread (this one) and a user (me) but seemingly you can not be bothered to follow up on it in kind.

J C · 30-03-2018 07:22PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You keep bringing up "personal insults" and "Getting personal". Not sure why as that is NOT what I am referring to at all. All I said was that I do not respect mere opinion. I respect and consider (if any) the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning offered with them. If you see someone being insulting, by all means take it up with them! It has nothing to do with me.

This thread is proceeding with little or no personal insults, since I joined it, at any rate ... and has been a nice experience to post in, as a result.
It also has produced thoughtful opinions from both sides, as well as giving people the space to consider them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I did provide a link so lets keep the distortions of reality to a minimum. You have not returned the favour. You have just claimed reasons have been given but not shown me where. Name a thread and a user and I will look into it happily. I have named you a thread (this one) and a user (me) but seemingly you can not be bothered to follow up on it in kind.

My apologies, I was thinking about another 'abortion' thread on a different forum.

Like, I have said, I'm new to this thread ... so I don't know much of what has been discussed on it, before I joined the thread.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-03-2018 07:26PM

You really have gone off on your own tangent with insults. I repeat, all I said was that I do not respect opinions. I respect the substantiation behind them. You seem to be replying to someone or something in your own head, not me.

Yeah I have a personal rule to only reply to threads if I have read every post on them. But roll back a bit. You claimed "arguments have been presented". So I am asking you for nothing more than a thread, and a user, so I can check for myself. Which I would. You then also claimed my side need to back stuff up so I named a thread and a user for you to check for yourself. Seemingly you will not.

Two differences between us there worth noting I feel.

Nettle Soup · 30-03-2018 07:40PM

J C wrote: »

This thread is proceeding with little or no personal insults, since I joined it, at any rate ... and has been a nice experience to post in, as a result.
It also has produced thoughtful opinions from both sides, as well as giving people the space to consider them.

My apologies, I was thinking about another 'abortion' thread on a different forum.

Like, I have said, I'm new to this thread ... so I don't know much of what has been discussed on it, before I joined the thread.

I think you've met your match now J C

Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

Comments