The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK wrote: »

The hospital figures have a disparity.

Curious - are you doing this for yer post count or something ? tis odd

anyway - where is this disparity ?

RobertKK wrote: »

Can you see the future though, what will abortions laws be in 20 years time?

Can you?

https://www.google.ie/amp/nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-killing-reignites-emotional-debate-can-an-unborn-fetus-be-a-murder-victim/amp

So in Canada last year they had the debate if the killing of the unborn could be classified as murder if a mother lost her unborn through a violent act.

Water John wrote: »

Gosh Robert, that retort is revealing. You and I know the chances of similar law in Ireland is infinetly close, to zero.

The point I'm trying to make is that whether you have a restricted system like in the U.K. or an unrestricted system like Canada, the rate of abortion, particularly late term abortion, is broadly similar.

Indeed, as we know, abortion restrictions in Ireland do not actually prevent abortion, they simply drive it underground. Several studies have found that abortion rates are not related to abortions legal status internationally, things like access to reliable contraception are more influential by far.

We may not have Canada's laws, but if we did, there is a significant chance our abortion statistics would be exactly as they currently are with the 8th amendment, possibly better in some respects because there'd be fewer cost delays with accessing early termination.

The horror and terror at the idea of trusting women is unfounded and not borne out in reality. Women who wish to end a pregnancy do so early and quickly using whatever means are available. Women who end a pregnancy late do so because of some extreme factor like FFA or a health crisis not because they decide to put it off for a bit.

Parker I understand where you are looking but I won't get involved, as I believe it's largely, running down a rabbit hole, to suit others with a diff agenda.

Misael Echoing Horse wrote:

This is the honesty I was referring to and which you cropped from your original post.

I'll be honest too, when I was younger I was appalled at the idea of abortion.

And then, like PP, I did some reading. And I lived in the real world. And, in all honesty, the more I knew about the issue, the more pro-choice I became.

I encourage anyone who cares about this issue to READ. Read the Oireachtas and Citizens' Assembly Reports and the reasoning behind the proposed legislation, read about what happens in countries with very restrictive abortion laws, read about the history of the pro-life and pro-choice campaigns (I mean mainstream stuff) and see where your conscience brings you when you are fully informed.

Misael Echoing Horse wrote: »

Up to the point where their conscience and their medical training dictates it should be based on the individual case, bearing in mind the fact that apparently needs a lot of repeating: a late termination of pregnancy doesn't necessarily mean ending the life of the unborn.

I'll repeat my question to you, do you admire the honesty in PP's post, that education on a matter to which they reflexively reacted negatively changed that reaction?

I'm trying to understand, Misael Echoing Horse. (And there's a sentence I thought I would never write.)

You talk about your own gut reaction

I'll be honest too, when I was younger I was appalled at the idea of abortion.

And then you talk about reading and educating yourself which obviously gave you a different attitude.
Initially I was perplexed by why you were applying the word honesty to what sounded like a process of rationalisation.
It seemed an odd choice.
After thinking about it my guess though is that you mean the journey hasn't just been rational. The honesty refers to the fact that you are now emotionally invested in your new(er) view of this question. No doubt a deep and difficult journey

And yet. (And I might already be miles off course here)
When I asked for a cutoff point for the Canadian woman, unlike PhoenixParker, you didn't give a date or a developmental stage or a principle related to the woman's rights.
Your answer was that you would leave it in the hands of the doctors. And if some wanted to perform an abortion and if some decided her pregnancy was too advanced and wanted to send her to the states instead and if some just refused, then you say (presumably) that's up to them.

Forgive me if I'm way off the mark now, but it seems that there is something of a distancing yourself from the question.
That, to bring it back to your emotional involvement, there is still something troubling at stake here for you at least when we get up to 20 weeks and after.

I don't expect you for a minute to answer something so personal on a forum like this. I'm just giving you my impression. And I'm more than likely miles off.


PS Just saw your last post there. Hope I'm not guilty of whatever that is.

applehunter wrote: »

We are a sovereign nation with our own constitution and we should not change that constitution lightly.

And when we do change it, and make an utter balls of the change, we should not be afraid to change it back.

Even 35 years later.

bertieinexile wrote: »

Misael Echoing Horse wrote:

This is the honesty I was referring to and which you cropped from your original post.

I'll be honest too, when I was younger I was appalled at the idea of abortion.

And then, like PP, I did some reading. And I lived in the real world. And, in all honesty, the more I knew about the issue, the more pro-choice I became.

I encourage anyone who cares about this issue to READ. Read the Oireachtas and Citizens' Assembly Reports and the reasoning behind the proposed legislation, read about what happens in countries with very restrictive abortion laws, read about the history of the pro-life and pro-choice campaigns (I mean mainstream stuff) and see where your conscience brings you when you are fully informed.

Misael Echoing Horse wrote: »

Up to the point where their conscience and their medical training dictates it should be based on the individual case, bearing in mind the fact that apparently needs a lot of repeating: a late termination of pregnancy doesn't necessarily mean ending the life of the unborn.

I'll repeat my question to you, do you admire the honesty in PP's post, that education on a matter to which they reflexively reacted negatively changed that reaction?

I'm trying to understand, Misael Echoing Horse. (And there's a sentence I thought I would never write.)

You talk about your own gut reaction

I'll be honest too, when I was younger I was appalled at the idea of abortion.

And then you talk about reading and educating yourself which obviously gave you a different attitude.
Initially I was perplexed by why you were applying the word honesty to what sounded like a process of rationalisation.
It seemed an odd choice.
After thinking about it my guess though is that you mean the journey hasn't just been rational. The honesty refers to the fact that you are now emotionally invested in your new(er) view of this question. No doubt a deep and difficult journey

And yet. (And I might already be miles off course here)
When I asked for a cutoff point for the Canadian woman, unlike PhoenixParker, you didn't give a date or a developmental stage or a principle related to the woman's rights.
Your answer was that you would leave it in the hands of the doctors. And if some wanted to perform an abortion and if some decided her pregnancy was too advanced and wanted to send her to the states instead and if some just refused, then you say (presumably) that's up to them.

Forgive me if I'm way off the mark now, but it seems that there is something of a distancing yourself from the question.
That, to bring it back to your emotional involvement, there is still something troubling at stake here for you at least when we get up to 20 weeks and after.

I don't expect you for a minute to answer something so personal on a forum like this. I'm just giving you my impression. And I'm more than likely miles off.


PS Just saw your last post there. Hope I'm not guilty of whatever that is.

What you call "distancing yourself" is actually putting trust in the woman and her medical team to decide for themselves. Why do you feel the need to "not distance yourself" from these private decisions Bertie? Do you ever wonder what it is about yourself and your own past that gives you such a deep interest in the private reproductive decisions of individuals you dont know, and why you have such a deep concern for their unborn? Forgive me if I am way off the mark, but perhaps you have had some experiences with women personally yourself that have led you to believe that women as a group want to hurt people, or cant be trusted to make "good" decisions? Or perhaps in your formative years that was a message you received from your upbringing or the Church, and you have never critically questioned it? I dont for a minute expect you to answer something so personal on a forum like this, I'm just giving you my impression of you.

applehunter wrote: »

Something people seem to forget.

We are not Britain.

We are a sovereign nation with our own constitution and we should not change that constitution lightly.

That's a pretty good argument against having things such as the 8th in the constitution. It's overly complex with drastic consequences and has no place in it.