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

end of the road wrote: »

well seeing as people don't seem to be interested in setting up such campaigns, or at least if they are i haven't heard of them, we probably will be waiting another 35 years. abortion on demand certainly won't be making those issues go away.

You're the one continually telling us the solution is to address these problems. What campaigns have you or any other No voter started or participated in? What campaigns will you start after the referendum campaign?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Only by declaring themselves unfit parents, though, UIAM, so that their other children would likely also be taken from them.

However, it doesnt solve the issue of an unwanted pregnancy. So it is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy for most women.

Sterilisation is not an option for a woman who may want to have a child later on. We dont have 100% fail safe contraception and until we do we need to accept reality.

We need to deal with reality. Not these silly ill thought out "solutions" that are not solutions at all.

Indeed.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

it's two strands of the same problem, women not being able to access elective medical treatment they want because their baby making abilities are valued over their desires.

that maybe the opinion of some in relation to sterilisation, and it's not one i'd share, given i believe it should be availible for anyone who wants it.
but i believe for most against abortion it's simply about upholding as much as is practical to do so, the unborn's right to life, and no more.

J C wrote: »

... and that's what the 8th amendment says :-

‘The states 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.’

And up until 1992, it was practicable to restrict the distribution of information about abortion in other countries, and to issue injunctions preventing women from having abortions overseas.

NuMarvel wrote: »

And up until 1992, it was practicable to restrict the distribution of information about abortion in other countries, and to issue injunctions preventing women from having abortions overseas.

And if it is practicable, the State guarantees to do it. The Attorney general cannot simply say "It was perfectly possible to stop X, but folks didn't like it, so I won't do it again". He was legally obliged to do it again.

And despite ducking its responsibilities for 20 years, the Oireachteas was obliged to pass laws imposing something like the 14 year jail sentences for abortion in Ireland contained in in the POLDPA.

And while the AG might not personally want to prosecute women under that act, if a case (say someone who gets pills off the internet) is reported to the AGs office, they are legally obliged to investigate, prosecute and jail people. Anything less is a failure in the Constitutional duty to defend and vindicate the equal right to life of the unborn.

Don't like the idea? Repeal the 8th. Please don't defend the 8th and then say, when some teenager is up in court facing 14 years in jail, that you never meant that to happen.

Does anyone know if it's possible to vote from another polling station? We're away on holiday in Wexford that week and we're looking at a ~€70 outlay for changing the arrangements. Coming back to Dublin for the day and going back down isn't really an option as we're taking the train.

The Irish Times 21 April 2018:

Ms Nell McCafferty said: “There is no conversation these days about abortion.”

She recalled the 1983 abortion referendum campaign, when “the pro-lifers were going around showing videos and telling us all that babies are being dismembered in the womb through abortion.

“I thought, ‘Nonsense.’”

She said she recently googled what a pregnancy looks like at 12 weeks. “They [the babies] suck their wee thumbs and they have toenails, fingernails and arms and legs.”

She said that in an abortion “they scrape the contents of the womb. The pro-lifers are right. Out come the wee arms and legs, and I thought: ‘Oh God, is this what I am advocating?’”

TadhgOMurchu wrote: »

The Irish Times 21 April 2018:

Ms Nell McCafferty said: “There is no conversation these days about abortion.”

She recalled the 1983 abortion referendum campaign, when “the pro-lifers were going around showing videos and telling us all that babies are being dismembered in the womb through abortion.

“I thought, ‘Nonsense.’”

She said she recently googled what a pregnancy looks like at 12 weeks. “They [the babies] suck their wee thumbs and they have toenails, fingernails and arms and legs.”

She said that in an abortion “they scrape the contents of the womb. The pro-lifers are right. Out come the wee arms and legs, and I thought: ‘Oh God, is this what I am advocating?’”

And she said this in the paragraphs following that excerpt:

When asked, Ms McCafferty confirmed that she would be voting to repeal the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits abortion, in the forthcoming referendum on the issue.

“I believe that abortion is necessary and [it is necessary] to have it [available] as freely, legally and widely as possible.”

recedite wrote: »

On the other hand, pro-lifers find often find it strange that pro-choicers can be offended by an image which reminds them of an unpleasant act, but not be offended by the act itself.

I'm assuming it would boil down to pro-choicers finding it strange that pro-lifers feel the need to intentionally lie on posters, misrepresent statistics, have shills come in and say they are of a certain profession only to be outed as fakes.

As a pro-choice voter but pro-life mindset (I'm looking to repeal for reasons to do with my partner which I've outlined in another thread I can PM you the link to if you'd like) I find it odd that the pro-life campaign insists upon lying left right and centre and continue to utilize the scare-mongering tactics.

I feel that they would be better off using the actual facts and representation of statistics along with genuine points of discussion e.g what if a father doesn't want the mother to have an abortion, what are his rights, rather than lie, call people baby murderers and rinse and repeat.

The entire campaign could have been a lot more respectable, reasonable and promoted genuine, intelligent debates and conversations, but one side chose to lie and twist at every turn, which is a shame. A referendum such as this does not deserve that kind of representation, it deserves honesty.

robarmstrong wrote: »

I'm assuming it would boil down to pro-choicers finding it strange that pro-lifers feel the need to intentionally lie on posters, misrepresent statistics, have shills come in and say they are of a certain profession only to be outed as fakes.

As a pro-choice voter but pro-life mindset (I'm looking to repeal for reasons to do with my partner which I've outlined in another thread I can PM you the link to if you'd like) I find it odd that the pro-life campaign insists upon lying left right and centre and continue to utilize the scare-mongering tactics.

I feel that they would be better off using the actual facts and representation of statistics along with genuine points of discussion e.g what if a father doesn't want the mother to have an abortion, what are his rights, rather than lie, call people baby murderers and rinse and repeat.

The entire campaign could have been a lot more respectable, reasonable and promoted genuine, intelligent debates and conversations, but one side chose to lie and twist at every turn, which is a shame. A referendum such as this does not deserve that kind of representation, it deserves honesty.

if that happened, then of course you would be correct. regardless of the side. however, apart from the 1 idiot who faked his credentials on the pro-life side, i haven't saw any of the rest of those you mention happening. pro-life have not lied, engaged in scaremongering, nor misrepresented statistics. they have put forward facts, which were backed up, and which checked out. they didn't go down well however, which is sort of understandible, i suppose.
there haven't been shills and bots on boards from either side, from what i can see either. just people who have come late to threads to ask questions (some of the threads are very long so it would take time to answer) yet on one thread have been met in return with hysteria, paranoia, and the rest, the like i have never witnessed during my 7 years on this sight. both campaigns are no more or less respectible then each other, however both have a minority of individuals who have gone way way overboard but who do not represent either campaign.
lots of good, genuine and intelligent debates and conversations have been given from the pro-life side and elements of the pro-choice side across many fora and most of us have discussed civily each other's point of view. unfortunately for some of the pro-choice campaign, they are more interested in throwing out slogans and shouting everyone else down rather then discussing the actual issues.

end of the road wrote: »

if that happened, then of course you would be correct. regardless of the side. however, apart from the 1 idiot who faked his credentials on the pro-life side, i haven't saw any of the rest of those you mention happening. pro-life have not lied, engaged in scaremongering, nor misrepresented statistics. they have put forward facts, which were backed up, and which checked out. they didn't go down well however, which is sort of understandible, i suppose.
there haven't been shills and bots on boards from either side, from what i can see either. just people who have come late to threads to ask questions (some of the threads are very long so it would take time to answer) yet on one thread have been met in return with hysteria, paranoia, and the rest, the like i have never witnessed during my 7 years on this sight. both campaigns are no more or less respectible then each other, however both have a minority of individuals who have gone way way overboard but who do not represent either campaign.
lots of good, genuine and intelligent debates and conversations have been given from the pro-life side and elements of the pro-choice side across many fora and most of us have discussed civily each other's point of view. unfortunately for some of the pro-choice campaign, they are more interested in throwing out slogans and shouting everyone else down rather then discussing the actual issues.

Just off the top of my head, the "1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion" poster, the "90% of babies with DS are aborted" poster, and the one where they ask would you be ok with murdering a 6 month old baby poster were all proven to be lies with zero factual basis.

end of the road wrote: »

the figure is about abortions, so therefore it is not going to include miscarriages and stillbirths as they are natural occurrences. i don't see anything misleading about that.



there isn't much if anything that can be done to help the fathers in this situation unfortunately. so the pro-life campaign wouldn't really get anywhere by focusing on that, as much as i agree it is a genuine issue.

The figure heavily references pregnancies, you can't say 1 in 5 of all pregnancies in England and Wales end in abortion without including miscarriages and stillbirths, it's hardly "all" pregnancies then, it's misleading.

I think you're wrong on helping the father's, I think there is something that could be done providing it was focused on, but it's nice to see we agree on something, it's a genuine issue and to be honest it's worrying that it has flown under the radar.

recedite wrote: »

A certain amount of cognitive dissonance is necessary in order to be both well informed and pro-choice.

I am HIGHLY informed and VERY much pro choice on this matter. Please regale me with the dissonance I must be suffering from. I certainly have not been made aware of it in the past.

recedite wrote: »

That's why they get offended when they see images of foetuses.

It might be wiser and, lets face it, more honest if we ask the people who are "offended" what they are offended by, rather than have your agenda driven version of it.

I get offended by lies and distortions for example. And the fact many of the images I have seen used against abortion................. over the 25 years I have been aware of the topic........... are not representative of the fetus we normally abort, is an example of this. When over 80% of abortions happen in or before week 10, 92% of abortions happen in or before week 12, and the near totality by week 16........ why do we get images of the fetus on such posters from MUCH later in the process? Like 24 weeks and later? I think you know why. I think we both know why an image of a fetus, especially one to scale, of a 10 week old fetus.... you know one actually representative of the vast majority of abortions...... would not serve their agenda. Quite the opposite I suspect. It would actually serve ours. But seemingly we have more decorum and taste than to use such things.

I also think that as parents it is our job to guide our children out of their innocence and into their adulthood. Where possible we should be let use our knowledge of where our child is at, to make decisions about what they are ready for. Bloody pictures of human innards all over posters in our high streets........ or from youth defence in your face right in them middle of family festivals in Galway town........ or those stands they used to have by Central Bank in Dublin......... bypass that process. If I was campaigning for healthier eating in Ireland I would not be plastering pictures of patients having open heart surgery in front of kids either.

So yea invent any narrative you like about why you want to imagine people are offended by certain imagery. The rest of us can speak for what our ACTUAL issue is with them however.

recedite wrote: »

On the other hand, pro-lifers find often find it strange that pro-choicers can be offended by an image which reminds them of an unpleasant act, but not be offended by the act itself.

What is strange about that exactly? Sex is not an unpleasant act but people would be offended by images of actual sex all over the place. Heart Surgery is unpleasant and no one really wants to be browsing images of them either. So there is nothing at all strange about people not being offended by an act, pleasant OR unpleasant, but not wanting to see imagery of it. Hell most of society seems to be doing what you "find strange" given very few people seek out imagery of how their meat is killed butchered and packaged. Another act people are not offended by, but are offended by imagery of.

Do you often call things that happen most of the time, in most people, in most placed, "strange" then? OR just when it fits a narrative you have going?