Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…3536384041…48

Comments

  • #1112
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    You're being inconsistent, J C. You say that life begins at fertilisation, but advocate the use of the morning-after pill.

    Why is it OK to kill the unborn before implantation but not after? I'm not asking about what's legal; I'm asking about morality.


  • #1113
    JDD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭JDD


    May I make the following points

    1. The pill and the MAP work in the same way, just the MAP is a higher dose. A. They prevent ovulation B. They thicken the entrance to the cervix to block sperm entry and C. In the small amount of cases where these steps fail, they prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

    2. They are legal because the right to life, in Ireland, only vests in an implanted foetus, something I’ve always found odd. Why is it that taking a pill to prevent implantation is acceptable, yet a pill taken a day after implantation is not?

    3. Embryos are routinely discarded during ivf treatment. How is this on the borderline of abortion if the right to life is invested from conception?

    4. I’m glad you think a termination is the moral equivalent of attending a bullfight or exercising your right to die. That doesn’t appear to be the view of most pro-lifers. And given the repercussions on the healthcare of pregnant women I would sincerely hope the 8th is not being imposed because of a vaguely held belief that terminations are morally questionable.

    If I was to tell my doctor I was bringing my daughter to Nigeria for an FGM procedure I would be prevented from traveling (and rightly so). Why would, if you believed a termination was the equivalent of killing a born person, saying that you were traveling for an abortion be any different?


  • #1114
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Here's your proof right here!

    It has been pointed out to you several times they

    A: not all women can take MAP
    ... and they cannot have an abortion pill abortion either ... which the 12 week abortion on demand proposal is supposedly designed to facilitate.
    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    B: If someone is being repeatedly raped/abused over the years by a relative/family friend they cannot go and get the MAP everyt8me.
    ... and your point is?
    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    You choose to if it's these points because it blows your whole "take the MAP intake situations" out of the water so you continue to post these lies as highlighted above!
    A difference of opinion isn't a lie.
    Please stop being so personally nasty with me.


  • #1115
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're being inconsistent, J C. You say that life begins at fertilisation, but advocate the use of the morning-after pill.

    Why is it OK to kill the unborn before implantation but not after? I'm not asking about what's legal; I'm asking about morality.
    I don't advocate the MAP ... but I morally tolerate it as the lesser of two evils.


  • #1116
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    I don't advocate the MAP ... but I morally tolerate it as the lesser of two evils.

    That's not an answer. If you were consistent in your positions, you'd be as vehemently opposed to the MAP as you are to abortion. But you're not. Why?


  • Advertisement
  • #1117
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,447 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    J C wrote: »
    I don't advocate the MAP ... but I morally tolerate it as the lesser of two evils.

    I thought the whole point of keeping the 8th was tnat the ban on abortion actually stopped thousands of women having abortions? Now you're saying it's the MAP that does it?

    And surely if fertilization is the start of life, it makes no difference, morally speaking, how developed the embryo is?

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #1118
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 19,174 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    Yes she wanted to be pregnant.

    so, she wasnt ethetically having a baby because she found herself pregnant.
    she was actually having a wanted child.
    big difference.


  • #1119
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 19,174 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    Then you also cannot take the abortion pill ... that is supposed to be the reason for the 12 weeks abortion on demand proposal.

    and yet I believe that other women should be allowed to take it....


  • #1120
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    JDD wrote: »
    May I make the following points

    1. The pill and the MAP work in the same way, just the MAP is a higher dose. A. They prevent ovulation B. They thicken the entrance to the cervix to block sperm entry and C. In the small amount of cases where these steps fail, they prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

    2. They are legal because the right to life, in Ireland, only vests in an implanted foetus, something I’ve always found odd. Why is it that taking a pill to prevent implantation is acceptable, yet a pill taken a day after implantation is not?
    It is the legal line drawn in Ireland. It is a practical limit ... and not a moral one. Almost every country has some limits on abortion ... Ireland happens to be at the conservative end of the spectrum.
    JDD wrote: »
    3. Embryos are routinely discarded during ivf treatment. How is this on the borderline of abortion if the right to life is invested from conception?
    The artificial production of human embryos and their subsequent treatment is something that needs to be regulated.
    JDD wrote: »
    4. I’m glad you think a termination is the moral equivalent of attending a bullfight or exercising your right to die. That doesn’t appear to be the view of most pro-lifers. And given the repercussions on the healthcare of pregnant women I would sincerely hope the 8th is not being imposed because of a vaguely held belief that terminations are morally questionable.
    I didn't say they are morally equivalent ... just examples of travelling to avail of services legally available in other European countries, but not in Ireland.
    JDD wrote: »
    If I was to tell my doctor I was bringing my daughter to Nigeria for an FGM procedure I would be prevented from traveling (and rightly so). Why would, if you believed a termination was the equivalent of killing a born person, saying that you were traveling for an abortion be any different?
    ... it all comes down to the legal principle that people can travel within Europe from one jurisdiction to another to avail of legally available services in the other jurisdiction.


  • #1121
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bubblypop wrote: »
    and yet I believe that other women should be allowed to take it....
    ... even though they could have prevented the pregnancy by using protection and/or the pill / MAP?


  • Advertisement
  • #1122
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 19,174 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    ... even though they could have prevented the pregnancy by using protection and/or the pill / MAP?

    do you not understand that contraception is not 100%
    seriously?


  • #1123
    Wildlife Actor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 491 ✭✭Wildlife Actor


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    It is not "confirmation" of anything.

    The 8th absolutely did prevent freedom to travel - we know that because of the judgement in the X case. The right to travel was added to change the 8th so that it did not prevent travel. it is a narrow exception to the text of the 8th, not a general right to travel.

    Here, read it yourself:

    3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

    This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

    You're saying the same as me. The right to travel was a pre existing right, prior to 1983. The X case raised a question as to the interaction of that right with the right to life of the unborn. The 1992 referendum "confirmed" that the right to travel trumped. It did not create a new right to travel.


  • #1124
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,033 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    ... and they cannot have an abortion pill abortion either ... which the 12 week abortion on demand proposal is supposedly designed to facilitate.

    Pills are not the only form of abortion.
    ... and your point is?

    My point is that your "MAP will prevent pregnancy from rape" is yet another lie as it's obvious that someone being continually raped would not have access to the MAP
    A difference of opinion isn't a lie.
    Please stop being so personally nasty with me.

    I'm not being nasty JC, But I won't hesitate to point it out when you tell blatant lies to further your agenda on these threads!


  • #1125
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's not an answer. If you were consistent in your positions, you'd be as vehemently opposed to the MAP as you are to abortion. But you're not. Why?
    ... because its the lesser of two evils.

    ... anybody faced with a choice between the MAP ... and killing an unborn child and extracting her from the womb ... would choose the former.

    That is the stark choice we are being faced with in the referendum.


  • #1126
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bubblypop wrote: »
    do you not understand that contraception is not 100%
    seriously?
    ... and as I have already said, that is something that needs to be factored in when somebody decides to have sex.

    It is totally unacceptable to use abortion as a means of contraception.


  • #1127
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    ... anybody faced with a choice between the MAP ... and killing an unborn child...

    No, J C. You're waffling. If life begins at conception, then taking the MAP is killing an unborn child.

    Why is it OK to kill an unborn child before implantation and not after?


  • #1128
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,447 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Love nor Money wrote: »
    You're saying the same as me. The right to travel was a pre existing right, prior to 1983. The X case raised a question as to the interaction of that right with the right to life of the unborn. The 1992 referendum "confirmed" that the right to travel trumped. It did not create a new right to travel.

    Gail O'Rorke had no right to travel to Switzerland to accompany her dying friend for a legal assisted suicide. So the theory that it is a right to travel for anything legal doesn't really hold up.

    It's a right to travel for abortion.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #1129
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 19,174 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    ... and as I have already said, that is something that needs to be factored in when somebody decides to have sex.

    It is totally unacceptable to use abortion as a means of contraception.

    I don't want children, I don't want to be pregnant.
    I take all the precautions i can.
    Are you suggesting that me & my partner should not have sex?


  • #1130
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Pills are not the only form of abortion.
    You're correct ... and the 12 week limit abortion on demand will therefore not just be confined to abortion pills ... but will also encompass full surgical abortions that kills the unborn child and extracts them.


  • #1131
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, J C. You're waffling. If life begins at conception, then taking the MAP is killing an unborn child.

    Why is it OK to kill an unborn child before implantation and not after?
    It isn't OK ... but it is the lesser of two evils.


  • Advertisement
  • #1132
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    It isn't OK ... but it is the lesser of two evils.

    Why? Is an unborn child a lesser human being before implantation? Why is it more evil to kill an unborn child after implantation than before?


  • #1133
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bubblypop wrote: »
    I don't want children, I don't want to be pregnant.
    I take all the precautions i can.
    Are you suggesting that me & my partner should not have sex?
    I'm suggesting that if you have sex ... and in the very unlikely event you conceive a child ... you should be prepared to see the pregnancy through to term.

    Your child needs you and only you up to delivery ... any other equally generous person can then parent your child, if you cannot do so, yourself, for whatever reason.


  • #1134
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why? Is an unborn child a lesser human being before implantation? Why is it more evil to kill an unborn child after implantation than before?
    It's the lesser of two legal evils.
    Morally speaking, you are correct, an unborn child is a human being at all stages from fertilization to adulthood.


  • #1135
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    It's the lesser of two legal evils.
    You really are incapable of articulating a coherent philosophy here, aren't you?

    Here's a thought: if you can't articulate a coherent philosophy, maybe you don't have a right to have your incoherent philosophy dictate the limits of a woman's bodily integrity and reproductive healthcare.
    Morally speaking, you are correct, an unborn child is a human being at all stages from fertilization to adulthood.
    So, morally speaking, you are exactly as opposed to the MAP as you are to abortion? There is no moral difference between the two? And, morally speaking, any form of assisted reproduction that involves the destruction of embryos is exactly as wrong as abortion?


  • #1136
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,597 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    J C wrote: »
    I'm suggesting that if you have sex ... and in the very unlikely event you conceive a child ... you should be prepared to see the pregnancy through to term.

    Your child needs you and only you up to delivery ... any other equally generous person can then parent your child, if you cannot do so, yourself, for whatever reason.

    Are you going to personally volunteer to look after the baby you've forced someone against their wishes to have?


  • #1137
    Wildlife Actor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 491 ✭✭Wildlife Actor


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Gail O'Rorke had no right to travel to Switzerland to accompany her dying friend for a legal assisted suicide. So the theory that it is a right to travel for anything legal doesn't really hold up.

    It's a right to travel for abortion.

    Wrong again. She had the right to travel wherever she wanted. None of the charges against her were for travelling anywhere. She was acquitted of course but I understand that's not the point.


  • #1138
    Wildlife Actor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 491 ✭✭Wildlife Actor


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    Are you going to personally volunteer to look after the baby you've forced someone against their wishes to have?

    Not a great point that, because it applies equally in a case where a parent decides they don't want their born child anymore. In both cases there is an answer (not a pretty one but an answer nonetheless) being state care.


  • #1139
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,597 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    Love nor Money wrote: »
    Not a great point that, because it applies equally in a case where a parent decides they don't want their born child anymore. In both cases there is an answer (not a pretty one but an answer nonetheless) being state care.

    Doesn't really apply as the mother has already gone through a pregnancy and has every right to choose to put her child up for adoption, just like she should have every right to choose the course of her pregnancy.


  • #1140
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 19,174 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    I'm suggesting that if you have sex ... and in the very unlikely event you conceive a child ... you should be prepared to see the pregnancy through to term.

    Your child needs you and only you up to delivery ... any other equally generous person can then parent your child, if you cannot do so, yourself, for whatever reason.

    You missed the part where I said I don't want to be pregnant.
    You are suggesting that should be forced to carry a child I do not want, in order to give it away.
    I am not a human incubator.


  • Advertisement
  • #1141
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    J C wrote: »
    It's the lesser of two legal evils.
    Morally speaking, you are correct, an unborn child is a human being at all stages from fertilization to adulthood.

    After we change the Constitution, abortion will be legal too, just like MAP and IVF.

    You are free to continue to regard them all as evil.


Advertisement