recedite wrote: » She needs to ask who did it, and why.
Akrasia wrote: » Jim Jefferies takes on our Justin Barratt on abortionhttps://youtu.be/S4Pk1d0ob1w
Aharddecision wrote: » Until I read the doctors for life statement on eighth amendment - the Citizens' Assembly.,..
Aharddecision wrote: » the doctors for life statement on eighth
Aharddecision wrote: » I would suggest you read the document before you vote......
Aharddecision wrote: » I've given a lot of thought to the abortion debate. More so than any other subject we get to vote on. I've been torn between what I've seen friends go through and the morality of it all. It’s such a hard choice. I do not want to make a mistake and regret my vote. I've looked at several factors: The physical & mental trauma caused by it being illegal here The amount of women it has affected yearly (those who travelled to UK & Netherlands) The support offered after the fact The pros and cons of each side of the debate I was still conflicted. Until I read the doctors for life statement on eighth amendment - the Citizens' Assembly. You'll have to look it up as I can't post a link. I would recommend you read it if you are still on the fence, as it helped me decide. This whole debate has been wrongly submitted by both sides in my opinion as there alternative ways to resolve the awful situation. I would suggest you read the document before you vote, even if you disagree with it, to ensure you have all the facts. I'd welcome any feedback if you have any.
Aharddecision wrote: » I would suggest you read the document before you vote, even if you disagree with it, to ensure you have all the facts. I'd welcome any feedback if you have any.
a decision is made that some unborn children (i.e. those targeted for abortion) do not have the same dignity, worth and rights as other unborn children
Where there is a real medical threat to the life of the mother, she should be afforded all necessary medical care, even if this unintentionally compromises the life of the unborn child, provided that every effort is made to preserve the life of that child. Therefore, Doctors for Life Ireland holds that introducing abortion even on restrictive grounds is not necessary to protect the life of pregnant women in Ireland. Rather what is needed is for the appropriate training bodies to produce clinical guidelines on the management of high risk pregnancies that keep up to date with current medical evidence and support good obstetric practice.
gctest50 wrote: » Did you read anything else ? That's a bit like posting up Jimmy Savilles guide to childcare
kylith wrote: » Can anyone on the No side please explain to me where the compassion is here?https://www.facebook.com/RepealTheEighth/posts/160910714583354:0
donspeekinglesh wrote: » Got this through the door earlier. Can't even manage to spell "civilised" consistently.
antiskeptic wrote: » Can anyone on the Yes side tell me why on earth they think concentrating on what has come to be known as "the difficult cases" ought cause someone to vote for abortion on demand? I didn't chose the terms of the referendum but faced with the option presented me, the difficult cases can't win out.
antiskeptic wrote: » Can anyone on the Yes side tell me why on earth they think concentrating on what has come to be known as "the difficult cases" ought cause someone to vote for abortion on demand?
Loafing Oaf wrote: » From a purely pragmatic perspective, is the answer not obvious? They are clearly the cases that touch people's heartstrings, make them feel that change is necessary.
antiskeptic wrote: » That's half of it. The other half is that if delving into pregnancies arising out of carelessness, irresponsibility and ignorance then people might have reason to pause.
aloyisious wrote: » One thing that will not come into practice will be abortion on demand. Those last three words together are being used as a moral-blackmail weapon by those oppsed to abortion for any reason to prevent the difficult cases you talk about from being solved. They know what they are doing when and by employing the three words together. The women seeking the abortion option, as against the 9 month gestation option or the cesarean option favoured by the anti-abortion campaign, will be submitting a request, not a demand, for interview and consideration for an abortion, which will be decided on by medical doctors.
A refusal is still an option for the doctors when it comes to their medical opinion and decision on the request.
Simon Harris has stated several times that termination is in the proposed legislation. It seem's that the cesarean-operation option is favoured by those promoting the legislation whereby birth, not death, is the preferred option.
As for the Pro-choice side concentrating, as you describe it, on the difficult cases to promote abortion on demand, again the use of the three words is an abuse of process by the Anti-abortion side. No one is demanding the right to abortion on demand, rather the right to make a decision on OPTING, or NOT OPTING, for an abortion beyond the constriction placed on her by others who have no interest in her pregnancy outside their limited vision and interference in her personal affairs. I don't see the Pro-choice side taking it's eye off the aim of allowing pregnant women as a group having the right to ask for an abortion so I don't know what lead's you to that conclusion.
It's simply asking anyone with a sense of compassion to use it and their thinking process to see what is right and what is wrong and do the right thing where it comes to removing the 8th from the constitution. IMO, to do otherwise is throwing the "difficult cases" out and continuing to export them to other countries NIMBY-style, to avoid facing up to the difficult decision cases. Compassion has no part in that last process, it's simply iooking the pregnant women in the face and telling them to go away to the UK. Voting NO will not stop that process.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Why are you asking a question if you already think you know the answer?
Mark Hamill wrote: » What may be the difficult cases for the Yes side, are the other abortions, the contraceptive ones or the non-fatal foetal abnormality ones.
The thing is, regardless of how difficult those cases may be to you, the reality is that even with the 8th amendment, they still happen by the 1000s every year, just exported to the UK or even here, with illegally imported pills. There is no denying that. To me, no matter how difficult those cases are for you, the idea of still keeping the completely ineffective 8th Amendment just to punish the women in those cases, whilst ignoring the women in the straightforward cases, is monstrously petty and betrays the lie in those who claim to "love both".
antiskeptic wrote: » Which I would suppose to make up the vast bulk of abortions. Nothing said for good reason: people sitting on the fence would have a far harder time reconciling something in them which sees some value in the life in the womb and the carelessness/irresponsibility/ignorance of the folk who created that life. As ever, this boils down to a view of life in the womb. It's worth less to you than fighting tooth and nail for the Dutch model - which prevents the problem to a large degree. It's worth less to you than pausing to consider that consequences attach to actions. Sometimes unpleasant consequences. It's worth less to you than easing the path into abortion by giving it societies imprimateur. Easing the path tends to increase consumption of the commodity in question.
antiskeptic wrote: » It's worth less to you than fighting tooth and nail for the Dutch model.
antiskeptic wrote: » We are considering what would effectively be the case rather than how the case is packaged. In the UK doctors sign off on abortion requests - you don't just walk into a clinic and get one. It is no coincidence that nigh on 100% of the boxes ticked by doctors granting an abortion there involves mental rather than physical danger. The latter is objectively verifiable, the former not. If they are pro-choice? If they have professional indemnity insurance to consider? Can you see inside someone's mind? I'm not sure what you're saying here. Cesarean-option leading to what? a. I have the right to ask for an abortion b. there is no practical way for the doctors to refuse me an abortion. What about that doesn't mean abortion on demand? As for interference in her pregnancy. That is resolved merely by holding the view that she is not the only interested party here. Unfortunately we weren't offered alternatives. The Dutch manage to place abortion as an option of last resort. We don't bother to investigate how we can bring about same but just go for the nuclear, U.K./U.S. option. All boils down ultimately, to how you view the life in the womb. Your compassionate-based view rests on the rendering of that life somehow sub-life. Which is fair enough for you, presumably. But doesn't strike as very compassionate to me.
