antiskeptic wrote: » Its not that I don't care about them, it's that I can't realistically control an individuals choice, nor should I.
antiskeptic wrote: » Since abortion won't save babies but will increase the number of babies killed, a starting point is not to introduce abortion. What's not about saving babies in being against the introduction of abortion on demand?
antiskeptic wrote: » I pick England because I think (having lived in England and Holland as well as here) England is culturally similar to here.
antiskeptic wrote: » That's one of my suspicions: that repeal and abortion on demand makes financial sense. It deals with the problem by way of amputation, not longer drawn out and expensive reconstructive surgery. It has the added bonus of us been seen by the rest of the world as catching up.
NuMarvel wrote: » So what good reason exists for not qualifying the general right to life to allow for women's bodily integrity, or health or other fundamental rights as other countries have done? What is it about Ireland, Malta, and a handful of other countries that makes us right and the other countries wrong? And what is with your obsession with Colm O'Gorman? He's married, so maybe get over it and move on.
recedite wrote: » If they go abroad, they can do whatever is legal in the country they go to, whether that is smoking cannabis or aborting a perfectly healthy unborn baby. That does not mean I should support legalising these things here.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » I've limited patience for talking to a wall - at least a wall has substance though and is useful for some things More of an amorphous fog that you can never grasp or pin down really
recedite wrote: » Currently an unborn child has only one right in Ireland; the right to his or her own life.
NuMarvel wrote: » It's explained earlier in my post. It's a right that's not being enforced, that no one actually wants to enforce, and some who support it want to diminish the effect of it (while also opposing the only means to do that, incidentally). There is little point keeping a law that doesn't do it's job and nobody wants to do its job, especially when it's having a harmful effect on others. So like I said, keeping the 8th helps no one, including the unborn. Removing it helps women.
Cabaal wrote: » Actually you know what, I'm done wasting my time to on the pointless fog.... Some of the user features are great on boards. Ie
recedite wrote: » That is simply a lie. The 8th amendment does protect the unborn in Ireland. If it didn't, why would you bother calling for it to be repealed.
Cabaal wrote: » How odd, so abortions are murder but you're OK with exporting murder. Well that's pretty messed up. Do you get a headache when trying to justify being OK with murder? Whats with pro lifer obsession with perfectly healthy? What about cases of FFA? Still happy to force these women and couples to travel without care and support and incur costs of upto 11k?
NuMarvel wrote: » I've explained why it doesn't protect the unborn, but the best response you had was to ignore that. I expect you'll do the same again...
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. It has potential. All going well and accepting that the human being who is carrying the embryo wants to continue with carrying what is essentially a foreign body growing in their uterus. Then it could. Could! Become a human life. For me, somewhere between 20 - 25 weeks the line between life/no life blurs. Conservatively I would have unlimited abortion to 18 - 19 weeks. After that I think you should need a medical consultation etc.
recedite wrote: » To me it is. But everyone has their own perception. I don't see much sign of intelligence in a new-born baby either. But I respect the fact that they are human nonetheless, and will one day develop their own personality. That's why evolution has made them look cute in our eyes; a cute face gives them instant protection, despite all their little annoyances.
recedite wrote: » O'Gorman spearheads a particular agenda in Ireland. He is the "useful idiot" of bigger international players such as George Soros who funds him. The Soros funding has been declared illegal by Ireland's SIPO, but O'Gorman cynically thumbs his nose, knowing that the court case won't be heard until after the referendum. The agenda operates on many fronts, but its objective here in Ireland is to destroy the unique culture of this country, and to standardise the whole of Europe into a rootless, nationless, homogenous population that is compliant to the wishes of international corporations.
The Soros funding has been declared illegal by Ireland's SIPO, but O'Gorman cynically thumbs his nose, knowing that the court case won't be heard until after the referendum.
recedite wrote: » You'll have to explain that one. Removing their right to life so that we can protect them?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Amnesty have a right to due process under the law. If they lose the case, they will have to refund the money, or redirect it to a different purpose. Which means either way their campaign on the 8th did not benefit from Soros' money..
aloyisious wrote: » I take it that before the time the 8th is removed and the abortion legislation is argued through the houses, then enacted into law, there will still be no legal abortions allowed here [outside those under the ezxisting POLDPA]. If that's true, then deleting the 8th in itself won't remove their protection to their right to life.
recedite wrote: » I fail to see the logic in your argument that the campaign is not benefiting from having that spending power.
recedite wrote: » In the meantime O'Gorman is happily spending the money in his high profile media campaign. I fail to see the logic in your argument that the campaign is not benefiting from having that spending power. I don't understand what you are saying. Anyway let NuMarvel explain it, as the person who made the claim originally.
recedite wrote: » He is the "useful idiot" of bigger international players such as George Soros who funds him.
Mark Hamill wrote: » That's exactly what you are doing by voting to keep the 8th amendment! Restricting womens choice to have abortions in Ireland, forcing them to travel and making it far more dangerous for them. You just don't care about the choice once you can't see it.
My point from the beginning is that abortions happen regardless of the 8th, you aren't saving those babies and you don't even care to try. All you are doing is hurting women in the straightforward cases, the cases that are so hard for you that you still haven't address this problem. If you aren't saving babies then what is the point when all you are doing is hurting innocent women?
Similar is not the same.
We don't have the same views on the EU, royalty, class and religion amongst others. Maybe more relevantly, the Irish teen pregnancy rate is 7.8/1000, the UK rate is 22.9/1000. Assuming our abortion rate would jump to the UKs (especially as our law will only allow abortion up to 12 weeks, not 24) is scaremongering, plain and simple.
How does it make financial sense? At the moment, abortions are exported at the mothers expense. If we provide abortions here, assuming the same cost as in the UK (under €700), then that would be at the very most €3.5million (5000 abortions*€700). The HSE has an annual budget of €14.5 Billion this year. Do you think €3.5 million would make difference?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » They could easily afford to refund that money right now. They are choosing not to until a definitive legal position is reached, which is their right. If I borrow €10 from you, spend it, then later give you €10 back, am I still benefiting from "your" money?
robindch wrote: » As Hotblack points out, this is really paranoid conspiracy territory. Popette (a major consumer of conspiracy theories covering virtually all areas of her life, and many of them either originating from Russia, or in line with Russia's passing needs) peppers most of her conversations these days with references to the immense perfidy of Soros and his despicable use of "useful idiots" - a phrase beloved of Lenin, we are enjoined to remember almost daily. :rolleyes:
mickydcork wrote: » Suppose I grant your supposition that a 12 week old fetus is equivalent to a human life (sure make it life at conception). What about the mother's right to bodily autonomy?
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.
frag420 wrote: » You do realise that maintaining the 8th wont stop abortions.
antiskeptic wrote: » You do realise that repealing the 8th will increase abortion. Ease of access, safety, cost of access, society imprimateur for having an abortion. Remove the barriers to consumption of something desired and consumption will increase.
PhoenixParker wrote: » The evidence and studies carried out on the legalisation of abortion do not suggest that effect. Legalizing abortion has little impact on abortion rates. When a woman feels she needs an abortion she will go to great lengths to obtain one, legal or otherwise.
antiskeptic wrote: » The mother forgoes her bodily autonomy
