8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Overheal · 08-05-2018 02:38PM

RobertKK wrote: »

So why are you using the US and not say the UK, Spain, Portugal etc?

Because I’m not British, Spanish, or Portuguese. Why do you place the Burden of Proof on me? You wildly speculate that repeal will cause an ever increasing rate of abortions: what is your evidence?

bootpaws · 08-05-2018 02:39PM

The_Brood wrote: »

And why does the law do this? Why does the law protect a baby but does not protect other sentient creatures who are much more advanced than it? Why is the law blind to a human life that is still unborn when it fully protects a human being that is still worlds away from what we recognize as a fully grown man or woman? Is this not wrong?

That is my answer to your second question. If a 1 month old baby is provided full rights by the government, so should a fetus. Both are still growing and developing but a million miles away from anything we recognize as a fully grown adult. In fact, there is a much greater difference between an adult person and a 1 month old baby than a baby and a fetus.

If we are operating on an "you earn your rights as you grow" philosophy, then it is absolutely absurd that a new born baby should have the same rights to life as a 30 year old person. And yet, that is exactly what the law is, in almost every country.

At this point I am 90% sure you are a mouse in a wig furiously typing on this forum about your lack of rodent rights in the eyes of our laws.

PlaneSpeeking · 08-05-2018 02:40PM

bootpaws wrote: »

At this point I am 90% sure you are a mouse in a wig furiously typing on this forum about your lack of rodent rights in the eyes of our laws.

Stuart Little was real!!!

Mrsmum · 08-05-2018 02:41PM

Too many to answer individually. For anyone that is genuinely following the flow of conversation (as opposed to going straight to outrage default) re the difference between a foetus and a one month old baby where many on the pro choice side spoke of anyone being able to mind baby after birth, my point is that a woman post birth isn't half as free as people would like to pretend here. It really would be nice if conversations could be had here.

SusieBlue · 08-05-2018 02:42PM

threescompany wrote: »

My sincerest apologies oh great one. I omitted a word. I meant to put in “pregnancies” after Downs Syndrome - should have read as “ aborting Down’s syndrome pregnancies” . Typo. I will endeavor not to repeat the same mistake. I’m now removing myself off this thread. It’s poison. A final few words . DS can be detected as early as 10-13 weeks. Look it up on any health website. Get your facts right whoever said 20 weeks. I don’t think DS people are people with “ odd shaped almond eyes” . Horrible comment.
You guys are the most self righteous online crowd I’ve ever had the misfortune to be communicate with. Also a moderator having a repeal logo???? Hardly very fair moderating?? Wouldn’t expect anything more from this place.
And lastly for the tools that asked why I’m bringing Down’s syndrome into the debate???
1. I was responding to the poster who said it couldn’t possibly be over 90% abortion rate in the UK.
2. I’m well aware DS is a subset of abortion or whatever you were droning on about...... but surely I can discuss this issue. We continually discuss FFA, rape, incest etc. So what’s your problem if I bring up DS? Anyway I’m done with you guys. Put on your repeal sweaters & hope you have a big day celebrating your win. You can all go to the opening of the local abortion clinics with a triumphant smile on those lovely faces !!

Would you stop spreading lies.
The 90% figure represents the amount of abortions that occurred after a positive prenatal DS diagnosis.
Of the 64% of women who DID have a positive prenatal DS, 90% chose to abort.
When you include the women who opted NOT to have any prenatal testing done (36%), that gives us an actual statistic of 57% of babies with downs syndrome being aborted.
I can see why there is less of a shock value with that number, therefore less of a chance to emotionally manipulate people, but that is no excuse for continuously misrepresenting facts.

kylith · 08-05-2018 02:42PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is non-existent. I can count the number of domestic infant adoptions on my fingers.

Which is why children wind up being bounced around the foster system and in care for so much of their lives.

amcalester · 08-05-2018 02:45PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is non-existent. I can count the number of domestic infant adoptions on my fingers.

This is very OT but why is this?

PlaneSpeeking · 08-05-2018 02:45PM

Mrsmum wrote: »

Too many to answer individually. For anyone that is genuinely following the flow of conversation (as opposed to going straight to outrage default) re the difference between a foetus and a one month old baby where many on the pro choice side spoke of anyone being able to mind baby after birth, my point is that a woman post birth isn't half as free as people would like to pretend here. It really would be nice if conversations could be had here.

Twisting and turning like a twisty turny thing.

No one said anything about the mother "not being free" - the point was the difference between embryo/foetus and one month old baby.

Calina · 08-05-2018 02:47PM

Mrsmum wrote: »

Too many to answer individually. For anyone that is genuinely following the flow of conversation (as opposed to going straight to outrage default) re the difference between a foetus and a one month old baby where many on the pro choice side spoke of anyone being able to mind baby after birth, my point is that a woman post birth isn't half as free as people would like to pretend here. It really would be nice if conversations could be had here.

She is significantly more free than she was while pregnant. There is significantly more flexibilty after the umbilical cord has been cut.

A key difference between a foetus and a baby is only one of them has survived birth and is marked alive. We count people's existence from the day we are born. This why you get cards on your birthday. Not on the date your parents conceived you.

Mrsmum · 08-05-2018 02:47PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is non-existent. I can count the number of domestic infant adoptions on my fingers.

That's fine ohnonotgmail yet when I said a mother is not free to walk away from her baby, it was suggested as an option.

PlaneSpeeking · 08-05-2018 02:47PM

amcalester wrote: »

This is very OT but why is this?

Because the forced birth lobby believe that you made the baby, you mind it.

Unless of course there's a rich American couple wanting it.

Or a space in the tank out back.

(For full disclosure, I'm Catholic and was just at Mass two days ago. I'm also aware of the dark history of how my country manifested my faith).

kylith · 08-05-2018 02:48PM

amcalester wrote: »

This is very OT but why is this?

I'd imagine that the rise of IVF would have a lot to do with it. Childless couples can now used technology to have their own rather than adopt.

....... · 08-05-2018 02:48PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 08-05-2018 02:49PM

This post has been deleted.

Calina · 08-05-2018 02:51PM

amcalester wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is non-existent. I can count the number of domestic infant adoptions on my fingers.

This is very OT but why is this?

Legislative framework is quite restrictive.

This incidentally is not unknown in countries where there has been question marks over adoptions, especially adoptions to foreign countries. Which Ireland has.

ohnonotgmail · 08-05-2018 02:52PM

Mrsmum wrote: »

That's fine ohnonotgmail yet when I said a mother is not free to walk away from her baby, it was suggested as an option.

It wasn't.

amcalester · 08-05-2018 02:52PM

kylith wrote: »

I'd imagine that the rise of IVF would have a lot to do with it. Childless couples can now used technology to have their own rather than adopt.

Thanks.

I thought that maybe there were barriers to adoption meaning that none were happening, it seems that people just aren’t adopting due to other options?

SusieBlue · 08-05-2018 02:56PM

amcalester wrote: »

This is very OT but why is this?

Various reasons, mainly to do with people having less children than previous generations, and couples who struggle to conceive having the option of IVF, so they don't need to adopt.

Its also almost impossible to put children up for adoption in this country, for a variety of reasons.

In cases from parents who have failed in their duty of care, the child is placed in emergency foster care. They remain there while Tusla conduct their investigations.
The Irish state recognises the best interest of the child is to remain with their natural parents.
Because of this, its a long, extremely drawn out process where all avenues are exhausted and explored and the parents are given every chance, before parental rights are removed and the child is available for adoption.
By this point he/she will have spent many years in foster care, if it happens at all.

We currently have over 6k children knocking around our foster system, yet only 5 infants were adopted in 2016.
Short of removing these parental rights prematurely (and perhaps wrongly), the number of infants/children available for adoption will not increase.

To voluntarily give a baby up for adoption you need to declare yourself an unfit parent. In doing this, you'd also be potentially risking losing any older children or any future children you might have.
At that, social workers will always try to keep children within the family, so you'd also have to prove you have no relatives willing to foster the child. It isn't a case of handing baby to a social worker and never seeing him/her again. Its an extremely drawn out process and not a case of just signing a piece of paper.

Its just a mess of a system at the moment.

ohnonotgmail · 08-05-2018 02:56PM

amcalester wrote: »

Thanks.

I thought that maybe there were barriers to adoption meaning that none were happening, it seems that people just aren’t adopting due to other options?

there are more people willing to adopt that there are children available for adoption. children spent years in foster care because they could not be adopted until the parents signed their approval. The best interests of the child were secondary. Thankfully that is now changing.

Mrsmum · 08-05-2018 02:57PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Twisting and turning like a twisty turny thing.

No one said anything about the mother "not being free" - the point was the difference between embryo/foetus and one month old baby.

Someone said, actually a few people said as a reason why they are different is that anyoneat all could look after her baby post birth and imo that is a total simplication.
"Twisting and turning like a twisty turny thing" - unnecessary comment but typical of poor conversation.

Kimbot · 08-05-2018 02:58PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Will do Kimbot, i hope this also go's for the people that simple wrote, repeal the 8th

I have not seen any of those posts, if you see them use the report function so that the mods are aware of it and they will be dealt with accordinly.

Triceratops Ballet · 08-05-2018 03:01PM

Mrsmum wrote: »

Someone said, actually a few people said as a reason why they are different is that anyoneat all could look after her baby post birth and imo that is a total simplication.
"Twisting and turning like a twisty turny thing" - unnecessary comment but typical of poor conversation.

anyone can, the mother can hire an nanny, the father, grand parents, older siblings can all look after a newborn. None of these people can look after a foetus

....... · 08-05-2018 03:02PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 08-05-2018 03:05PM

This post has been deleted.

kylith · 08-05-2018 03:05PM

amcalester wrote: »

Thanks.

I thought that maybe there were barriers to adoption meaning that none were happening, it seems that people just aren’t adopting due to other options?

That is probably one of the reasons. Another is that there is now a societal pressure not to give a baby up for adoption; the feeling being that a woman would have to be heartless to 'give away' a baby.

So women who have an unwanted pregnancy have one group of people shouting that they shouldn't abort when people want to adopt, and another group shouting that they would be some kind of monster to give their baby to complete strangers. It must feel like they can't win.

....... · 08-05-2018 03:07PM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 08-05-2018 03:07PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think Erica74 (possibly, apologies if I'm confused) posted "Repeal The 8th" in response to one of Anne's many many Save The 8th posts.

PlaneSpeeking · 08-05-2018 03:08PM

Mrsmum wrote: »

Someone said, actually a few people said as a reason why they are different is that anyoneat all could look after her baby post birth and imo that is a total simplication.
"Twisting and turning like a twisty turny thing" - unnecessary comment but typical of poor conversation.

It's a quote from Blackadder.

I have tried to debate you but it's very, very difficult.

PlaneSpeeking · 08-05-2018 03:09PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Various reasons, mainly to do with people having less children than previous generations, and couples who struggle to conceive having the option of IVF, so they don't need to adopt.

Its also almost impossible to put children up for adoption in this country, for a variety of reasons.

In cases from parents who have failed in their duty of care, the child is placed in emergency foster care. They remain there while Tusla conduct their investigations.
The Irish state recognises the best interest of the child is to remain with their natural parents.
Because of this, its a long, extremely drawn out process where all avenues are exhausted and explored and the parents are given every chance, before parental rights are removed and the child is available for adoption.
By this point he/she will have spent many years in foster care, if it happens at all.

We currently have over 6k children knocking around our foster system, yet only 5 infants were adopted in 2016.
Short of removing these parental rights prematurely (and perhaps wrongly), the number of infants/children available for adoption will not increase.

To voluntarily give a baby up for adoption you need to declare yourself an unfit parent. In doing this, you'd also be potentially risking losing any older children or any future children you might have.
At that, social workers will always try to keep children within the family, so you'd also have to prove you have no relatives willing to foster the child. It isn't a case of handing baby to a social worker and never seeing him/her again. Its an extremely drawn out process and not a case of just signing a piece of paper.

Its just a mess of a system at the moment.

5 ???? Good God it's worse than I thought.

SusieBlue · 08-05-2018 03:11PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

5 ???? Good God it's worse than I thought.

Have a read of these statistics, its depressing.

DOMESTIC INFANT ADOPTIONS
2016 - 5 infants
2015 - 7 infants
2014 - 6 infants
2013 - 10 infants
2012 - 3 infants

8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Comments