The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

ArthurDayne · 24-05-2018 01:04PM

brianhere wrote: »

Anyway I thought I'd give another quote from the link in the OP to see what people think:

Is the unborn foetus/baby a human life worthy of protection?

I guess that gets to the heart of the issue. Maybe if you are still undecided it means you still struggle to fall either side of this conundrum, and so possibly it might help to halve this question, as it were. Instead of facing the full question of whether the abortion is killing the unborn, and whether that is wrong or right if you accept it is a killing, then why not ask yourself what attitude you would take to some step less than killing. Say, for the sake of argument, that either a mother or a doctor or whoever decides to injure the unborn by blinding him/her. With the advancement of medical science with its scanning and drugs and what have you, its probably not impossible to deliberately injure an unborn child, if you wanted to, short of killing him/her. Then a few years later you bump into that person on the street, using a cane to get around.

Do you think that step of blinding that person was wrong? Do you think that person should have had legal protection when they were unborn and do you think those that injured him/her should be punished? If your answer is yes then obviously you should vote No to retain legal protection for the unborn. And clearly to kill that person, an abortion, is a more serious step that to cause injury, you couldn't treat that more leniently than the blinding?

Another element that might inform your view of whether or not the unborn is a person worthy of legal protection, is to take on board the curious consensus that has grown up around this referendum. To date the debate has been dominated by emotional outpourings, to a degree by both sides. The Yes side has highlighted a large number of cases where mothers went to the UK to have an abortion and how difficult it was for them taking home the ashes or body of their baby, how emotionally wrenching they felt it to be as they tried to organise proper funeral arrangements etc. Meanwhile the No side has highlighted the stories of people who survived abortions, or greatly regretted them etc. In any case the strange thing is that both sides here are accepting the humanity of the unborn, the Yes side are surprisingly happy to highlight all these cases where people have mourned the death of the unborn. But isn't that itself a sign of the unborn's humanity, you don't mourn the loss of just some part of a woman's body like this? Internationally an interesting example comes from Mikhail Gorbachev. In 2014 he gave an interview where he became emotional talking about the great trauma he, and his wife Raisa, always suffered as a result of an abortion of their first baby way back in 1953, 61 years before.(1)

Surely these stories themselves show you at least how important the unborn child is, that their lives are worthy of some sort of legal protection?

As I am not responding to this person directly, I have no qualms in saying that the point they are making here is nonsense dressed as eloquence.

Firstly, there is no profound moral dilemma in what this person is saying. It would be unequivocally wrong of course to interfere with a foetus where the intention is that this pregnancy is to be carried through and the developed baby will thus be left disabled in some way. There is a great difference between aborting a foetus prior to personhood, and mutilating a foetus prior to personhood with the intention that the subsequently developed person will be paralysed/blinded etc etc. These scenarios are absolutely not equivalent.

Secondly, as for both sides acknowledging the 'humanity' of the unborn, I was unaware that this was ever in contention. The human body is made up of cells -- a sperm is a human cell, as is the ovum. The fact that they have not yet merged does not detract from the fact that they are taxonomically human, and thus the fused zygote is taxonomically human too. The question is not one of 'humanity' but one of 'personhood'. The question is whether you believe a zygote has the same separate rights as the female person in which it has begun to develop. All sense indicates of course that this should not be the case. The question then becomes one of asking yourself when such 'personhood' commences, and weighing up the rights versus the woman in which the foetus will be developing into a person.

Movementarian · 24-05-2018 01:16PM

There are so many hypotheticals and what ifs in this situation. Very few things in life are black and white and this issue is all sorts of grey.

I have found myself wondering many times 'what if', example, what if my wife was pregnant and I developed a terminal illness? Would she want to carry the baby on her own? Would she have that option?

I would be quite open that in my ideal world there would be no abortions. But life is far from ideal. Myself and my wife are trying for a baby right now so abortion is the very last thing on our minds right now.

What swung this for me, was the thought that if anything went wrong if my wife was to get pregnant, if her life or health was at risk, if our life circumstances changed, if any of the multiple kicks to the balls that life can throw at you happened, would I want ALL options on the table, including abortion? Absolutely.

There is no easy choice here. Nobody makes this choice lightly either way. But when I look at my wife and try imagine life without her, I can't. I can't take the risk, no matter how small, that her life would be risked. I dont want her or any daughters we might have to have any risk. My earnest hope would be that abortion would be the last resort and option, and by giving open and legal access maybe we can help these women make these choices.

Thats the reason for my yes. I hope I am not alone in this. All the best.

GreeBo · 24-05-2018 01:25PM

Is it any more selfish or harmful to the people involved if :

I have more children than I can reasonably support just because I want them
OR
If I abort my pregnancies because I dont wan't the children?

Noo · 24-05-2018 01:32PM

Whats interesting is that I have read so so many stories about women who have been directly affected by the 8th. No two stories are the same. These are the people DIRECTLY affected by the 8th, they are not hypothetical situations, they are the current situations being experienced by the women of Ireland today. So many different real life stories.

Theres so much "oh im voting no because the legislation will go too far and I only believe in it in certain circumstances". Well wake up to reality sunshine, "certain circumstances" do not exist! Every woman has a different story and they are all deserving a medical care in their home country.

brianhere · 24-05-2018 01:34PM

ArthurDayne
Whether you call it 'life' or 'humanity' or 'personhoood' is only to argue semantics, the question arises is it a good idea or not to give legal protection to the unborn? I think the analogy of blinding a person shows that it is, you cannot have a society without some protection for the unborn. Certainly Minister Harris seems to think so:

"Nobody wants to see unborn life not protected...Countries around the world do not put this [the 8th] in their constitution [but] they still protect their unborn, they still love their children."
(RTE1 TV Prime Time 22/05/2018, 13:57, 24:40.)

He seems to equate the unborn child with 'children', as do most people on the Yes side, if you look at the consensus mentioned above, and consequently do civilised societies not seek to protect their children? Isn't it a good idea to protect children? What I don't understand is how Minister Harris can say he is doing so when he has proposals there to kill said children for no reason at all for 3 months, at least?

GreeBo · 24-05-2018 01:38PM

brianhere wrote: »

ArthurDayne
Whether you call it 'life' or 'humanity' or 'personhoood' is only to argue semantics, the question arises is it a good idea or not to give legal protection to the unborn? I think the analogy of blinding a person shows that it is, you cannot have a society without some protection for the unborn. Certainly Minister Harris seems to think so:

He seems to equate the unborn child with 'children', as do most people on the Yes side, if you look at the consensus mentioned above, and consequently do civilised societies not seek to protect their children? Isn't it a good idea to protect children? What I don't understand is how Minister Harris can say he is doing so when he has proposals there to kill said children for no reason at all for 3 months, at least?

Countries all around the world allow termination up to 12 weeks...some go further, some slightly less, but of our European neighbours, the vast majority allow for abortions up to 12 weeks.

I'm not sure how you decided that "most people on the Yes side equate the unborn with 'children'". Was there another vote somewhere that I missed?

brianhere · 24-05-2018 02:02PM

But there is such a consensus on the Yes side. Look at all those stories of families who have gone to England for an abortion and then brought back Roisín or whoever, and gave her a proper funeral etc. Obviously they look upon their unborn child as a member of the family, a child, a person, and these are stories from the Yes side. You also have the quote from Minister Harris above and here is Senator Catherine Noone talking about it:
"of course abortion means the termination of a child’s life" (RTE Radio1 Today with Sean O'Rourke 18/1/2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYKuivX5s1Y .)

The airwaves are full of this Yes acknowledgement of the reality of the necessity to protect and cherish unborn life if you follow this debate at all, for example here is a post from the administrator of the Limerick Pro Choice Forum facebook page for example:

"Make no mistake that Irish women and pregnant people love their babies and humanise the foetus and it is deeply upsetting and wrong that this country does not allow them to terminate their pregnancies at home, with the love and support of their families. We as a country have to respect these people's right to grieve, to say as Danny Healy Rae did, that the "little baby didn't feel very loved" undermines and disregards the pain this decision causes the mother and completely disregards the depths of a mother's love."

And here are some comments placed on the donations page for the Yes campaign:

"The Kilty Family: “In loving memory of Alana Kilty, delivered in Liverpool Women’s Hospital on the 04/03/2017. A victim of Edwards Syndrome and a backwards country. Your parents love and miss you xoxo.”

Anonymous: “For my lovely mam who was forced to carry my sleeping brother to full term. She loved him. This country didn’t love her.”

Siobhan Donohue: “In memory of baby TJ delivered in Liverpool Women’s on October 1, 2011 and for all our TFMR [Terminations for Medical Reasons] babies. Let’s bring compassion home.”

Seamus Ruddy: “In memory of our little boy James who had a FFA [fatal foetal abnormality]. Tragedy should not be punished further by forcing parent(s) dealing with a crisis pregnancy to travel abroad to receive medical care.”

Anonymous: “For baby Jack who shouldn’t have had to suffer here.”

Anonymous: “For the little girl I never met— we both deserved better.”

Sylvia Smith: “For baby Grace and all the other babies who fly high!! Vote yes!!!!!!!”"
( https://www.irishexaminer.com/breaki...re-837271.html .)

So they do see the unborn as children but I don't understand how you can do so and then agree to allow people to kill/murder said children for any reason at all?

'

GreeBo · 24-05-2018 02:05PM

I will still disagree that anecdotal evidence means that "all yes voters" believe that but in any case, perhaps its one way they can come to terms with the horrendous ordeal they are currently forced to go through?

FYI Note that the abortion itself isnt the horrendous ordeal.

AnneFrank · 24-05-2018 02:05PM

I'm so sick of canvassers shoving leaflets in my face, i'm voting no as i do not believe injecting a foetus to paralize it, and then an injection to it's heart to kill it, is healthcare.
Can't wait till tomorrow is over, one way or the other.

ArthurDayne · 24-05-2018 02:06PM

brianhere wrote: »

ArthurDayne
Whether you call it 'life' or 'humanity' or 'personhoood' is only to argue semantics, the question arises is it a good idea or not to give legal protection to the unborn? I think the analogy of blinding a person shows that it is, you cannot have a society without some protection for the unborn. Certainly Minister Harris seems to think so:

He seems to equate the unborn child with 'children', as do most people on the Yes side, if you look at the consensus mentioned above, and consequently do civilised societies not seek to protect their children? Isn't it a good idea to protect children? What I don't understand is how Minister Harris can say he is doing so when he has proposals there to kill said children for no reason at all for 3 months, at least?

OK -- let's set aside 'semantics' then. I respect your view that you believe that the foetus is a child. In that case -- please provide a Yes or No to the following. No semantics, no ifs or buts -- just a yes or no:

All women who have had an abortion for reasons beyond those covered by the POLDPA 2013 should be classified and treated in the same way under the criminal justice system as a murderer who has killed a child. Y/N

Women who have been impregnated through rape should be forced against their will to continue with the pregnancy. If they have an abortion they should be treated in the same way under the criminal justice system as a murderer who has killed a child. Y/N

A 15 year-old child impregnated through rape should be forced to continue with a pregnancy if medical experts can confirm that the pregnancy poses no risk to her life. Anyone who assists her in procuring an abortion within or without the State should be treated as either a child murderer or an accessory to child murder. Y/N

Women who are known or suspected of attempting to travel abroad to have an abortion performed should be apprehended (at the airport if necessary) and subject to investigation and prosecution for attempted murder of a child. Y/N

Thanks

oscarBravo · 24-05-2018 02:08PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

i'm voting no as i do not believe injecting a foetus to paralize it, and then an injection to it's heart to kill it, is healthcare.

You think abortion involves an injection to a foetus's heart?

As for whether or not abortion is healthcare, millions of healthcare professionals believe it is; you don't. One of you is wrong.

SusieBlue · 24-05-2018 02:09PM

brianhere wrote: »

But there is such a consensus on the Yes side. Look at all those stories of families who have gone to England for an abortion and then brought back Roisín or whoever, and gave her a proper funeral etc. Obviously they look upon their unborn child as a member of the family, a child, a person, and these are stories from the Yes side. You also have the quote from Minister Harris above and here is Senator Catherine Noone talking about it:
"of course abortion means the termination of a child’s life" (RTE Radio1 Today with Sean O'Rourke 18/1/2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYKuivX5s1Y .)

The airwaves are full of this Yes acknowledgement of the reality of the necessity to protect and cherish unborn life if you follow this debate at all, for example here is a post from the administrator of the Limerick Pro Choice Forum facebook page for example:

And here are some comments placed on the donations page for the Yes campaign:

So they do see the unborn as children but I don't understand how you can do so and then agree to allow people to kill/murder said children for any reason at all?

'

Because there is a vast difference between a 10 week old zygote the size of a grape, and a 24 week old fetus, capable of life outside the womb if it were not for FFA.

The government doesn't recognise babies lost before 23 weeks as having even existed, they will not issue death or birth certificates for them.
And one in 3 babies are naturally miscarried before week 12 of a pregnancy. That's why the vast majority of people don't announce their pregnancy news until after the first scan, which is usually 12 weeks.

AnneFrank · 24-05-2018 02:13PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You think abortion involves an injection to a foetus's heart?

As for whether or not abortion is healthcare, millions of healthcare professionals believe it is; you don't. One of you is wrong.

Fetal intracardiac potassium chloride injection

brianhere · 24-05-2018 02:23PM

"All women who have had an abortion for reasons beyond those covered by the POLDPA 2013 should be classified and treated in the same way under the criminal justice system as a murderer who has killed a child. Y/N"

No. Because obviously the difference between killing and murder must take into account the degree of knowledge and motivation of the person committing the act. If a woman was completely misled into thinking what she was doing was 'healthcare' or 'women's rights' or something then you cannot say she had anything like full knowledge of what she was doing, hence its not murder. But it would be very wrong though in my opinon.

"Women who have been impregnated through rape should be forced against their will to continue with the pregnancy. Y/N"

Yes. Pregnancy happens after a child has entered the world, I don't agree that you can hold that child responsible for the circumstances of their conception. You know there are public figures in modern Ireland who were conceived in rape, and they happen to think they have every right to life.

"A 15 year-old child impregnated through rape should be forced to continue with a pregnancy if medical experts can confirm that the pregnancy poses no risk to her life. Y/N"

Yes. You know it might be a good idea to watch some video on abortion procedures because I think if you did you mightn't be so enthusiastic about it! Its a very brutal act to do to a woman, not at all good for her health never mind her mental health. So I don't agree with inflicting that on any woman, least of all a girl in such a difficult situation that you describe. Here is such a video for example: https://youtu.be/CFZDhM5Gwhk .
The girl in the C case for example, who was raped at 13 I think it was, said later that the abortion was a far more terrible act to have been done to her than the rape, and there are actually quite a few women out there saying the same thing.

"Women who are known or suspected of attempting to travel abroad to have an abortion performed should be apprehended (at the airport if necessary) and subject to investigation and prosecution for attempted murder of a child. Y/N"

No. Because obviously thats impractical and anyway its moot because I answered the first question No above, as you can see.

blanch152 · 24-05-2018 02:26PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

I'm so sick of canvassers shoving leaflets in my face, i'm voting no as i do not believe injecting a foetus to paralize it, and then an injection to it's heart to kill it, is healthcare.
Can't wait till tomorrow is over, one way or the other.

When did a pill being swallowed orally obtain the capacity to inject anything?

sbsquarepants · 24-05-2018 02:26PM

To my mind the horse has already bolted - abortion is already here and here to stay. This vote is basically "how many hoops would you like to make a woman availing of an abortion jump through"

Only the poorest, the youngest, the weakest and the most vulnerable are not in a position already to avail of abortion on demand - by heading to the UK or Holland or wherever. This ban protects no one, all it does is heap trauma and expense on people who just don't need it at a difficult time in their lives.

I have daughters, if one of them came home pregnant at 14 and wanted an abortion - I'd get them one 8th or no 8th. It's not like i'll say "sorry love, there was a vote, an the country decided you have to have it - sure that's life for you"

People really need to learn to keep their noses out of other peoples business - you have no more right to force someone to go through with a pregnancy than you do to force them to end one. A ten / twelve week foetus is not a human being - it merely has the potential to become one. Just like little Johnny playing up front for rag ball rovers under 11's has the potential to be the next Mo Sallah - this potential is all well and good, but you won't see Barcelona paying 200million for little johnny, because potential is just potential. Ring your insurance company and get a quote for life insurance on this 12 week "human being" or try claim childrens allowance for them - see how far you get with your "but it's a baby" speil!

The choice has got to lie with the individuals involved. I'll definitely be voting yes.

G.Leech · 24-05-2018 02:28PM

Did you know that Cristiano Ronaldo’s mother wanted to abort him?

In her autobiography, “Mother Courage”, Dolores Aveiro explains that a restrictive abortion laws and a doctor who strongly advised her against that course of action dissuaded her, giving rise to perhaps the greatest footballer of all time.

I’m a Guardian reader.

Here’s a quote from The Guardian;

“Lord Steel, architect of the 1967 Abortion Act, says today that abortion is being used as a form of contraception in Britain and admits he never anticipated "anything like" the current number of terminations when leading the campaign for reform.

The Liberal Democrat peer, whose bill legalising abortion in certain circumstances marks its 40th anniversary on Saturday, says an "irresponsible" mood has emerged in which women feel they can turn to abortion "if things go wrong".”

The Irish regime will be far more permissive.

What the Irish government is promoting is a fraud.

They have stitched you and your democratic rights up - big time.

The government seek to copper-fasten their right to make whatever laws they want be inserting a new clause into the fundamental rights section of the constitution.

In layman's’ terms, this is what is on the ballot paper;

“Are you;

(a) prepared to strike down the right-to-life of the most innocent and defenceless human beings in our midst - the unborn babies in the wombs of their mothers, so that,

(b) the Government and parliament may introduce lethal force to extinguish their lives?”

It supplants the unborn child’s fundamental right-to-life with a right-to-kill.

This will be the first time, anywhere in the world that killing babies in the womb will be deemed a “fundamental human right”.

Why are they opposed to you seeing the reality of what happens to a baby when it gets aborted?

Why don’t you google it? See how you feel …

It will bring in the slaughter of innocents, by sleight-of-hand, focusing constantly as they have on the hard cases which break all of our hearts.

Don’t be fooled.

Don’t sleep-walk into this.

Tragic as they are, those terrible hard cases will account for a tiny minority.

Send the government back to the drawing board. We deserve better.

The children of Ireland deserve better than this.

These abortion laws are hugely controversial not just in Ireland but around the world.

Irish Governments of the future will be able to make whatever abortion laws they like.

Worse still, application may be made to our courts, urging for more extreme abortions to be allowable. As it “termination of pregnancy” will be enshrined as a fundamental right - it will succeed.

Don’t forget abortion services are big business.

In the US, Planned Parenthood makes approximately $1.3 Billion per annum killing over 324,000 babies.

Do you want your taxes spent on this?

The destruction of our noble tradition of great Irish motherhood?

Beware of them exploiting Savita’s tragic case for their own ends.

An early termination of her pregnancy was the appropriate treatment and was lawful under the 8th amendment.

There will be plenty of unintended consequences to this.
When it comes to killing human beings, we should err on the side of caution.
“No public discourse or debate is possible in France about abortion. Since 1993, it is a criminal offence to try to dissuade a woman from having an abortion.” Irish Times

Beware of Group think.

Beware of euphemisms and deliberate confusion.

Many women regret their abortions.
Sharon Osbourne said it was “the worst thing [she] ever did”.

These poor young mothers often grieve in silence.
They need our support to opt for adoption.
Not to be expected to abort.
Abortion is final.
It hurts everyone.

Please choose life.

GreeBo · 24-05-2018 02:31PM

brianhere wrote: »

No. Because obviously the difference between killing and murder must take into account the degree of knowledge and motivation of the person committing the act. If a woman was completely misled into thinking what she was doing was 'healthcare' or 'women's rights' or something then you cannot say she had anything like full knowledge of what she was doing, hence its not murder. But it would be very wrong though in my opinon.

Whether or not its called "abortion", "healthcare", "super happy funtime" or not is irrelevant.
The woman in question knows that the reason for the procedure is to stop a pregnancy and prevent a child being born.

Do you think there are women having abortions who dont have the knowledge that an abortion is stopping their pregnancy?
Is that *seriously* your argument?

blanch152 · 24-05-2018 02:38PM

G.Leech wrote: »

Did you know that Cristiano Ronaldo’s mother wanted to abort him?

In her autobiography, “Mother Courage”, Dolores Aveiro explains that a restrictive abortion laws and a doctor who strongly advised her against that course of action dissuaded her, giving rise to perhaps the greatest footballer of all time.

I’m a Guardian reader.

Here’s a quote from The Guardian;

“Lord Steel, architect of the 1967 Abortion Act, says today that abortion is being used as a form of contraception in Britain and admits he never anticipated "anything like" the current number of terminations when leading the campaign for reform.

The Liberal Democrat peer, whose bill legalising abortion in certain circumstances marks its 40th anniversary on Saturday, says an "irresponsible" mood has emerged in which women feel they can turn to abortion "if things go wrong".”

The Irish regime will be far more permissive.

What the Irish government is promoting is a fraud.

They have stitched you and your democratic rights up - big time.

The government seek to copper-fasten their right to make whatever laws they want be inserting a new clause into the fundamental rights section of the constitution.

In layman's’ terms, this is what is on the ballot paper;

“Are you;

(a) prepared to strike down the right-to-life of the most innocent and defenceless human beings in our midst - the unborn babies in the wombs of their mothers, so that,

(b) the Government and parliament may introduce lethal force to extinguish their lives?”

It supplants the unborn child’s fundamental right-to-life with a right-to-kill.

This will be the first time, anywhere in the world that killing babies in the womb will be deemed a “fundamental human right”.

Why are they opposed to you seeing the reality of what happens to a baby when it gets aborted?

Why don’t you google it? See how you feel …

It will bring in the slaughter of innocents, by sleight-of-hand, focusing constantly as they have on the hard cases which break all of our hearts.

Don’t be fooled.

Don’t sleep-walk into this.

Tragic as they are, those terrible hard cases will account for a tiny minority.

Send the government back to the drawing board. We deserve better.

The children of Ireland deserve better than this.

These abortion laws are hugely controversial not just in Ireland but around the world.

Irish Governments of the future will be able to make whatever abortion laws they like.

Worse still, application may be made to our courts, urging for more extreme abortions to be allowable. As it “termination of pregnancy” will be enshrined as a fundamental right - it will succeed.

Don’t forget abortion services are big business.

In the US, Planned Parenthood makes approximately $1.3 Billion per annum killing over 324,000 babies.

Do you want your taxes spent on this?

The destruction of our noble tradition of great Irish motherhood?

Beware of them exploiting Savita’s tragic case for their own ends.

An early termination of her pregnancy was the appropriate treatment and was lawful under the 8th amendment.

There will be plenty of unintended consequences to this.
When it comes to killing human beings, we should err on the side of caution.
“No public discourse or debate is possible in France about abortion. Since 1993, it is a criminal offence to try to dissuade a woman from having an abortion.” Irish Times

Beware of Group think.

Beware of euphemisms and deliberate confusion.

Many women regret their abortions.
Sharon Osbourne said it was “the worst thing [she] ever did”.

These poor young mothers often grieve in silence.
They need our support to opt for adoption.
Not to be expected to abort.
Abortion is final.
It hurts everyone.

Please choose life.

Is this a collection of common lies told by the NO side?

AnneFrank · 24-05-2018 02:44PM

blanch152 wrote: »

When did a pill being swallowed orally obtain the capacity to inject anything?

Fetal intracardiac potassium chloride injection

spacecoyote · 24-05-2018 02:49PM

I don't get the constant throwing out of:

"Mother ABC decided not to have an abortion & kept the baby, and she now loves her baby & doesn't regret it"

I'd be absolutely amazed if the YES side could find a case of:

"Mother ABC decided not to have an abortion & kept the baby, and now she hates her baby & regrets it"

Just because someone contemplates an abortion & decides against it, doesn't make choosing abortion wrong. It's a completely pointless anecdote. People who have babies, ultimately want the baby & won't regret that.

As an aside...holding up Ronaldo as a reason to not have an abortion would only push me further down the road of a YES vote

oscarBravo · 24-05-2018 02:51PM

AnneFrank wrote: »

Fetal intracardiac potassium chloride injection

At 12 weeks?

brianhere wrote: »

You know there are public figures in modern Ireland who were conceived in rape, and they happen to think they have every right to life.

And they're right to think that, because - having been born - they have a right to life.

You know it might be a good idea to watch some video on abortion procedures because I think if you did you mightn't be so enthusiastic about it!

I watched a video of the procedure I underwent to treat my glaucoma - it's called trabeculectomy, if you've a fetish for videos about medical procedures - and I still went through with it.

Most people don't enjoy watching surgical procedures. That doesn't mean that those procedures aren't a good idea.

brianhere · 24-05-2018 02:59PM

That video, which is here: https://youtu.be/CFZDhM5Gwhk , does not contain all that bloody stuff from the operation, it just presents the procedures factually and with cartoon like figures to get the points across properly.

24-05-2018 03:04PM

I don't get to make a vote here, but it seems if unsure you should vote no. Because vote for yes is end of discussion, but vote for no just means wait a couple of years and try again.

SusieBlue · 24-05-2018 03:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't get to make a vote here, but it seems if unsure you should vote no. Because vote for yes is end of discussion, but vote for no just means wait a couple of years and try again.

Vote Yes and you can lobby your TD's and the government for legislation you find preferable.
Vote No and continue to export the problem, the abortion rate won't change, and put women in danger.

We've waited 35 years for this referendum. I'm not waiting another 35.
Its a no brainer, really.

GreeBo · 24-05-2018 03:09PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't get to make a vote here, but it seems if unsure you should vote no. Because vote for yes is end of discussion, but vote for no just means wait a couple of years and try again.

This isnt the Lisbon Treaty.
Voting No will mean more women forced to have secret abortions for years.

spacecoyote wrote: »

I'd be absolutely amazed if the YES side could find a case of:

"Mother ABC decided not to have an abortion & kept the baby, and now she hates her baby & regrets it"

https://www.babygaga.com/15-parents-reveal-how-they-wished-their-kid-was-never-born/

brianhere · 24-05-2018 03:13PM

Anyway here is another quote from the link in the OP:

"Learning from recent history

And finally I will leave you with one other concept. That is the simple one that those who don't know their history are condemned to repeat it. It might help to learn from the recent experiences of other countries and try to avoid the mistakes they made.

The USA legalised abortion under the Roe v Wade decision in 1973 and the circumstances behind that decision were progressively revealed in after years. The mother in this case, Roe, was actually Norma Leah McCorvey Nelson who revealed later that she lied when she stated that the baby she bore was conceived in rape.

Another person who came forward with information later on about this key pro-choice victory was Dr Bernard Nathanson, the chief medical adviser to the main pro-choice organisation in the US at the time and one of the key figures involved in legalising abortion there in the late 60s early 70s. He changed his mind on abortion as the 70s progressed, based largely on the new appreciation he had of unborn life from the advent of ultrasound technology:

"“For the first time, we could really see the human fetus, measure it, observe it, watch it, and indeed bond with it and love it. I began to do that.”
...
“On a gut, emotional level, I still favored abortion,” he told New York magazine in 1987. “It represented all the things we had fought for and won. It seemed eminently more civilized than the carnage that had gone on before.”
But, he added, “it was making less and less sense to me intellectually.”"(7)

So I will leave you now with this long quote from him on the kind of tactics that the abortion lobby had used to achieve legalisation, in the hope again that Irish people now will be able to learn from this history:

"I was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws in the U.S. in 1968. A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the Supreme Court to issue the decision which legalized abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced virtual abortion on demand up to birth.

How did we do this? It is important to understand the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.

The First Key Tactic was to capture the media

We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority.

We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization.

The Second Key Tactic was to Play the Catholic Card

We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its "socially backward ideas" and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was played endlessly...And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were (and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheists' opinions.

The Third Key Tactic was the Denigration and Suppression of all Scientific Evidence that Life Begins at Conception

I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New York City and had to set up a perinatal research unit, just at the start of a great new technology which we now use every day to study the fetus in the womb. A favorite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Fetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy.

Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of fetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic: at $300.00 a time 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma. But to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic utilitarian answer to social problems.

As a scientist I know, not believe, know that human life begins at conception. Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity."(8)"
( http://www.politics.ie/forum/elections/263893-manifesto-undecideds.html .)

ArthurDayne · 24-05-2018 03:13PM

brianhere wrote: »

"All women who have had an abortion for reasons beyond those covered by the POLDPA 2013 should be classified and treated in the same way under the criminal justice system as a murderer who has killed a child. Y/N"

No. Because obviously the difference between killing and murder must take into account the degree of knowledge and motivation of the person committing the act. If a woman was completely misled into thinking what she was doing was 'healthcare' or 'women's rights' or something then you cannot say she had anything like full knowledge of what she was doing, hence its not murder. But it would be very wrong though in my opinon.

As usual -- a No voter flees this question. If it is a child in your view, and a woman makes a decision of her own accord to abort the foetus (I laughed at your assertion that a woman would get an abortion for 'womens' rights'), then it is child murder. If you do not think it is child murder, then you are accepting that the foetus is not a child.

brianhere wrote: »

"Women who have been impregnated through rape should be forced against their will to continue with the pregnancy. Y/N"

Yes. Pregnancy happens after a child has entered the world, I don't agree that you can hold that child responsible for the circumstances of their conception. You know there are public figures in modern Ireland who were conceived in rape, and they happen to think they have every right to life.

"A 15 year-old child impregnated through rape should be forced to continue with a pregnancy if medical experts can confirm that the pregnancy poses no risk to her life. Y/N"

Yes. You know it might be a good idea to watch some video on abortion procedures because I think if you did you mightn't be so enthusiastic about it! Its a very brutal act to do to a woman, not at all good for her health never mind her mental health. So I don't agree with inflicting that on any woman, least of all a girl in such a difficult situation that you describe. Here is such a video for example:
[video]https://youtu.be/CFZDhM5Gwhk[/video]
The girl in the C case for example, who was raped at 13 I think it was, said later that the abortion was a far more terrible act to have been done to her than the rape, and there are actually quite a few women out there saying the same thing.

I have to say -- I have never got truly angry over a post on this site until I read the above. A raped woman should be forced to allow the foetus implanted in her by a rapist to develop into a person because maybe that person will go on to be a public figure? What??

As for child rape. In the case where a 15 year old girl, who has already undergone the unspeakably terrible trauma of being raped, is begging to have an abortion before having to go through the added mental and physical trauma of continuing with a pregnancy forced upon her by a rapist --- you would force her against her will to continue with the pregnancy? You would force that upon a child who makes it very clear she does not want to --- and you would do so on a 'you will thank me one day' basis? Tell me, what punishment should she be given if she performs the abortion herself via other means? To juvenile hall with her or just the asylum?

And what of her parents -- if a compassionate and loving father who actually listens to his daughter decides to take his daughter to England for the abortion -- what does that make him in your eyes? A murderer?

brianhere wrote: »

"Women who are known or suspected of attempting to travel abroad to have an abortion performed should be apprehended (at the airport if necessary) and subject to investigation and prosecution for attempted murder of a child. Y/N"

No. Because obviously thats impractical and anyway its moot because I answered the first question No above, as you can see.

So you champion the right to life of the unborn but you think the law should do nothing to stop women going abroad to 'kill their babies'.

I must say --- I'm starting to doubt whether you are pro-life at all.

GreeBo · 24-05-2018 03:21PM

brianhere wrote: »

Anyway here is another quote from the link in the OP:

"Learning from recent history

And finally I will leave you with one other concept. That is the simple one that those who don't know their history are condemned to repeat it. It might help to learn from the recent experiences of other countries and try to avoid the mistakes they made.

The USA legalised abortion under the Roe v Wade decision in 1973 and the circumstances behind that decision were progressively revealed in after years. The mother in this case, Roe, was actually Norma Leah McCorvey Nelson who revealed later that she lied when she stated that the baby she bore was conceived in rape.

Another person who came forward with information later on about this key pro-choice victory was Dr Bernard Nathanson, the chief medical adviser to the main pro-choice organisation in the US at the time and one of the key figures involved in legalising abortion there in the late 60s early 70s. He changed his mind on abortion as the 70s progressed, based largely on the new appreciation he had of unborn life from the advent of ultrasound technology:

So I will leave you now with this long quote from him on the kind of tactics that the abortion lobby had used to achieve legalisation, in the hope again that Irish people now will be able to learn from this history:

This thread (your thread!) has turned from "The Dilemma of the undecideds" to "How can I convince them all to vote No."

Things must be quiet in the IONA offices.

lawred2 · 24-05-2018 03:23PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't get to make a vote here, but it seems if unsure you should vote no. Because vote for yes is end of discussion, but vote for no just means wait a couple of years and try again.

You clearly don't understand how legislation works in Ireland.

The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

Comments