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.
antiskeptic wrote: » 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.
Status of Iona Institute challenged in letter to Charities Regulator Atheist Ireland compares regulator stance on repeal mural at Project to Iona campaigns The status of the socially conservative Iona Institute has been questioned in correspondence sent to the Charities Regulator, which notes it is listed as both a private company and registered as a charity. A letter from Atheist Ireland points out the Iona Institute is currently “campaigning actively” against repealing the Eighth Amendment. The letter says the institute is a “private company limited by guarantee” but also “registered as a charity, under the charity category of ‘advancement of religion’.” Atheist Ireland notes that the Charities Regulator instructed the Project Arts Centre to remove a mural supporting repeal of the Eighth Amendment, by artist Maser, on the grounds that the charity was engaging in political activity that was not directly related to the advancement of the centre’s charitable purpose – the advancement of education. Political issues It says the Iona Institute “campaigns regularly on other political issues”. Iona “enjoys these financial benefits of having charitable status under the religion category, while enjoying the political benefits of making mostly secular arguments in this and other political campaigns, and indeed explicitly denying that it is advancing religion”. The letter asks the regulator if “all of Iona’s political activity directly related only to advancing religion, as required by the charity category under which it is registered”. It also queried if “all of Iona’s political activity directly related only to advancing the Christian religion, as required by the main object in its memorandum of association”. It claimed that the Iona Institute “does not meet the criteria of a religion. It often publicly positions itself as a secular think-tank, it makes mostly secular arguments for its political positions, and at times it explicitly denies that it is advancing religion, despite enjoying the financial benefits of being registered as a charity with the specific object of advancing religion”. Iona Institute director David Quinn described the Atheist Ireland letter as “ridiculous”. He noted how charities such as Barnardos and the ISPCC played an active role in the Children’s Rights campaign while the Vincent de Paul Society campaigned on the budget every year, and homeless charities were involved in ongoing campaigns on the housing issue.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/status-of-iona-institute-challenged-in-letter-to-charities-regulator-1.3478329
aloyisious wrote: » I listened to Declan Ganly on the Sean O'Rourke show earlier and listened to his explanation on what will be in the legislation re the making of a decision on whether to provide an abortion or not. It seem's Declan think's that anyone with a quack medical certification or with the description of medical practitioner after their name will fit the bill to provide the second opinion needed to give the OK for an abortion..... In his opinion an ambulance driver would fit the bill.
recedite wrote: » The policy paper only specifies "2 medical practitioners"...
recedite wrote: » Ganley was correct, although he did not mention the word "quack". The policy paper only specifies "2 medical practitioners" (which could be the surgeon employed by the abortion clinic, plus his/her nurse) A medical practitioner is anyone with a basic medical related qualification. It was a good debate, but his opponent Colm O'Gorman showed himself up as being ill informed. When he insisted it was two "doctors" Ganley was able to say "Are you quite sure about that? Because you're wrong". O'Gorman for his part could only keep repeating the mantra that the No campaign was "based on lies", but lacked the facts to back up his claims.
Mark Hamill wrote: » Try again. No deflections, no avoiding it, this is supposedly about stopping babies being murdered. Circa 4000 irish abortions in the UK yearly. Upwards of 1000 abortion pills taken (source - 5650 pills ordered in 6 year period) yearly. That is ~5000 Irish babies murdered each year, despite the lack of the "Dutch model", despite the lack of "pausing to consider consequences" and despite the lack of "societies imprimateur".
The 8th doesn't stop these and it never will.
All it does is hurt the women in the straightforward cases, in the cases that you admitted are difficult for you. The No side runs from and ignores this problem. Anyone I've spoken to or posted with online runs from and ignores this problem. How do you address this problem?
NuMarvel wrote: » It's interesting to watch the pro life lies (and this one is a lie) being parroted by people who don't do any of their own research. In the general scheme, medical practitioner is defined as someone who is on the Medical Council's Register of Medical Practitioners, in other words, doctors. What's more, under the Medical Practitioners Act, what you call "a basic medical related qualification" is actually a course that leads to a Bachelor's qualification in Medicine and Surgery. This isn't a case of someone doing a first aid course. It won't be nurses, paramedics, porters, or porters who say they're nurses, who make the decision; it'll be doctors. And it'll be doctors who are appropriate to the particular clinical situation, eg, oncologists in the case of cancer patients, and so on.
antiskeptic wrote: » Funny kind of language being used in the "Policy Paper Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy"Policy 10, Definition of medical practitioner: "That the definition of appropriate medical practitioners in the General Scheme would include all registered medical practitioners on the Medical Council register." Including someone doesn't exclude someone else. Hmmm.
NuMarvel wrote: » The General Scheme has been published, so can you point out the section that allows decisions to be made by someone other than a doctor?
antiskeptic wrote: » You take a utilitarian view. I start in a different place and look at society as a household 1. Assuming a No vote. This household says the value of the life in the womb is equal to that of the mother. Other households can think what they like, but this is what is thought and applied here. 2. If you are living in this household the the mores of this society will apply. We will do our best to instill these values in you: we will educate and support you in this (even though we don't in practice) 3. If you chose to step outside and live contra to the mores of this household, we won't condone it or support it, but because we love you, we will look after you should your actions require our care. 4. We expect that by upholding these values, despite some members of the household choosing to operate outside them, the household as a whole will continue to live and benefit by these values. Hopefully the above helps illuminate. You cannot stop people going their own path. But that doesn't mean you change your own values. 8th vs no 8th aren't the only options. We could learn from the Dutch, for example. In that case, the argument for repealing the 8th would rely on fractions of those figures. No one seems very interested in that though.
antiskeptic wrote: » 5000 /2.385 million = 0.00209% of the female population of Ireland had an abortion last year 200,000 / 33.2 million =0.00602% of the female population of the UK had an abortion in whatever year I saw the number. We might suppose that we'd experience a threefold increase in abortion, if on demand.
Mark Hamill wrote: » So another one to add to the "ignore problem" list. You haven't addressed the problem of 1000s of abortions still happening despite the 8th amendment, you've just admitted that you don't care about abortions once they don't happen "in your house" (or once they happen in secret).
This is supposed to be about saving babies, but instead of looking for ways to save as many as possible (the pragmatic approach), you create little stories to hide some pathetic NIMBYism.
Why the fixation on the UK? Germany, who has the same allowance up to 12 weeks on demand that is proposed for Ireland, has a rate of 6.1./1000 women aged 18-44. Netherlands, which goes up to 21 weeks, has an abortion rate of 9. That's compared with a rate of ~ 17 in the UK. (btw, abortions per total number of women is a bad metric as it doesn't take account of different sizes of child-bearing age groups in different populations).
recedite wrote: » It took a long time to ban smoking in public places. Its an indirect line between cause and effect. Even though one person's smoking can affect the health of another person. Whereas running up to somebody else and putting a knife in their back has always been a big no no. A very direct causation of death there.
recedite wrote: » Currently an unborn child has only one right in Ireland; the right to his or her own life. People like Colm O'Gorman want to take that human right away from them. In a nutshell, that is all this referendum is about. Remove the 8th, and you remove that human right. I can fully appreciate that many of you are fine with that. After all we can (and do) value human life differently according to the circumstances. If a 90 year old man down the road dies, you are not going to be as upset as if you would if your 10 year old daughter or niece died. How many died in the last car bomb in Kabul? was it 1, 10 or 100? Do you even care? We are pre-programmed to care more about the faces we see regularly, not so much about the people we have never met.
volchitsa wrote: » As for the right to life, how many other countries have a constitutional right to life, and does it prevent them from having legal abortion? Do those countries which don't have any constitutional right to life (the vast majority I believe) find it impossible to restrict or ban abortion?
mickydcork wrote: » I suppose it's not so much that we value human life differently, it's that we probably have a slightly different definition for what we consider 'human life'. To me a 12 week old embryo is not a human life.
recedite wrote: » Currently an unborn child has only one right in Ireland; the right to his or her own life. People like Colm O'Gorman want to take that human right away from them. In a nutshell, that is all this referendum is about. Remove the 8th, and you remove that human right. I can.... Rant and whatabouttery....
NuMarvel wrote: » Keeping the 8th helps no one, including the unborn. Removing the 8th means we can at least help women and still offer protections in Ireland to the unborn.
recedite wrote: » I think every country aspires to a general "right to life" whether their constitution is written or unwritten. But every country qualifies that right. Colm O'Gorman ironically would be very familiar through his core business (Amnesty International Ireland) with countries that execute criminals and political prisoners. Even in Ireland we accept that the defence forces and the Gardai may legitimately have to take a human life in the course of their business. Or, as only recently established, a person defending themselves in a "home invasion" scenario can do it. Ireland just happens to be one of the countries that has fewer exceptions than most countries. Or at least, we used to be.
Cabaal wrote: » So you're not going to answer any of my questions? Continue to dodge is the order of the day. Nice. Can you just save everyone some time by not replying with stuff that's not actually answering the question. Thanks
recedite wrote: » You'll have to explain that one. Removing their right to life so that we can protect them?
