Perhaps I am just being silly here - and just playing devils advocate for the anti choice side - but I think they were talking about the ability to feel pain not the pain itself.
It isn't. Like I said above it is the ability to experience pain that is the factor. Which a brain can have even if the body loses it's ability to transmit that pain.
Similarly the people saying "it has arms and legs" should think about a fetus born without either. They exist too.
Even the "heart beat" is a difficult one to get over excited about given that doctors do not pronounce death when the heart beat ends - but they vicariously pronounce death based on when the heart beat has ended for "long enough".
Which kinda whittles it down a little doesn't it - what it is that we should actually get excited about when any individual abortion comes up.
Unfortunately the guy who could best answer that question has not yet answered the call to come to the thread :)
But my feeling from talking to him is "very few" is the answer to your question.
And he said something about "rights" being the only concept that can lift itself up by it's own shoe laces or something :/ He is better at this than I am. I suck at this debate.
I suffer from an over abudance of empathy so as pro choice as I am - I do suffer from understanding how many many anti choice people must feel. I know what it must sound and feel like for many of them. And I can even understand why you cling to "12 weeks" like you do - even though that particular number doesnt make much sense.
Our country made the right decision on repeal is the only thing I feel I can safely say on the thread title. What we do next and where we go from here is an open question.
It sounds like your incentives are well aligned with his - should this messiah ever get his ass into the thread :)
His estimation is much higher than yours but your thinking sounds a lot like his.
I look forward to watching you and he talk when he shows up.
Why don't you tell us? You introduced this argument about foetal pain, so tell us all about it.
Make our National Maternity Hospital Public and Secular
Nuns Nuns Reverse Reverse!
Who's us ?
No one else had difficulty understanding what I said was my position, no one else came out with dopey replies either
Well it has to be considered.
Submitting to the unthinking slogan " my body - my choice " cannot be the long and the short of it
"Us" being obviously those of us reading the thread, not hard to figure out
You're argument is it shouldn't happen once the foetus can feel pain.
Yet, you don't know when that is, or if it happens at all?
Speak for yourself, only you had trouble figuring out what I said was my position earlier
I don't know a lot of specific details about the human body , it doesn't negate the basic principle
Don't kill the foetus past the point it's conscious enough to feel pain,prior to that, I'm " pro choice "
What's so difficult to grasp?
Ehh, you lost me at "Pro aborts", never mind "squeal".
Those words just explain why nobody could enter a discussion with somebody who thinks it's OK to talk about others like that.
Voted against it in 1983 and again to repeal.
Done and consigned to history now like much of the misogynistic laws that have troubled women since our little country became a republic. Thankfully.
You seem to a bit of an obsession with theft. If you are pregnant, it is a matter for you to decide whether or not you go ahead with the pregnancy. It is a matter of your rights, and a matter for your conscience. Therefore, if you are opposed to abortion, you should not have one, whereas if you're not, there's no requirement on you to have one, though you can have one if you wish. Theft isn't a matter of rights, it is merely a matter of conscience. You shouldn't take someone else's property, and you have no right to do so, while the owner has a right to retain their property. In an extreme situation, it could be argued that someone has a right to steal something if theft is the only way to acquire the item and acquisition might save a life.
A lot of contributors to this thread seem to support time limits for abortions. Why?
I campaigned against the 8th in 1983. I didn't campaign in 2018, as I'm older, more tired and a damn sight less idealistic now. I left that to the millennial generation of my family, and I contributed money instead.
Don't be certain that this has been consigned to history. In 1983 I thought we'd never see the end of the 8th. Even as recently as 8 or 9 years ago I thought we wouldn't. But the political tide turned, as it so often does and as it can again. However hard-won that change was, there are sinister and well-resourced forces out there who would change it back, and they simply will not go away. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
there are sinister and well-resourced forces out there who would change it back, and they simply will not go away.
There are also forces out there, largely the same ones, who would like to re-outlaw divorce, contraception and gay sex. Do you there is a realistic possibility that will happen?
The tide of opinion changes, and if you wait long enough, who knows what twists and turns there might be? So while on balance I'd say not, I would never entirely rule out the possibility.
However, abortion is something different altogether. It is an intensely emotive subject that seems to interfere with the capacity of people for rational and consistent judgement. You can see it in every public discussion on the subject, including this thread; people take an emotive stance on abortion, and this leads them to opposig the right of people to privacy and bodily integrity, something they do without really assessing the rationality of their position, and then they simply won't reconsider or reassess. And they are extraordinarily well-resourced. So I wouldn't underestimate their capacity to dig in for a long war on this issue
You haven't explained anything about theft; you've just gone on about it.
Protection from what?
Well opposition to divorce was nearly as passionate in the Ireland of my youth, yet that evaporated almost entirely after the referendum in question passed by a wafer thin majority.
To me the fundamental reason for that is the hardcore ultra-Catholic minority who would like to see divorce re-outlawed recognised there was no realistic hope of winning a majority of Irish people back round to their way of thinking and so didn't bother even trying. Hell even Justin Barrett is no longer opposed to divorce.
And I don't see abortion as fundamentally different in that regard. If you look at the commentary by the pro-lifers since the repeal referendum, it's all desperately trying to spin the idea that the abortion regime we now have is not what many of those voting yes to repeal wanted. They are unable to confront the reality that a clear majority of Irish people now do favour 'liberal abortion' because they have no idea how to go about reversing that state of affairs.
If you don't mind my asking, how long is your frame of reference for this? If it's 30-40 years that's still too short, IMO. I wouldn't assume that over the longer term the trend is always to liberalise the law.
And in any case I still think abortion is on a different plane to the other social issues. Look at some of the comments made in this thread, even by those who say they voted for repeal in 2018. You'd never get such a degree of ambiguity in a discussion on divorce, or gay rights.
You are omitting the one word that your argument is actually centred on. You are implying that abortions are a crime, which makes no sense. You can debate this on an ethical basis, but comparing the issue to something considered a criminal act is not on.
Ultimately it is irrelevant what you think regarding legality or otherwise. Thankfully it is now safe free legal and rare - as the people voted for.
If you think it's wrong, dont have one.
Well in the Irish context I think you can go back to Independence. Okay things were pretty much frozen from the 1920s to 1960s but once movement started it was all in one direction. To me the most striking thing is not that there has been little or no reversal or social liberalisation but that the Catholic Right barely even tries to achieve that. I remember Des O'Malley reflecting on this phenomenon on a history doc some years ago:
"We have this great tradition in Ireland of people dying in in the last ditch to resist social change: 'Oh the sky will fall if we introduce contraception or divorce or whatever.' And then it's over and it's passed and everyone forgets all about it..."
I suppose abortion is different from some of the other issues in that there remain minor battles to be fought around the margins like trying to retain the three-day waiting period. But on the substantive issue of abortion on demand/request/without restriction in the early stages I am seeing very little substantive 'battle plan' from the likes of Iona as to how that might be reversed.
all the convincing on the rights and wrongs of abortions were doing the referendum. enough people were convinced and the amendment passed. There will always be people you can't reach but thankfully they are so few they are no longer relevant.
I'm not discussing the rights and wrongs of abortion.
Maybe I'm one of those you reference. I voted for repeal, a bit naively because I was influenced by the hard cases cited. My vote has been misrepresented, starting with Minister Harris who said the abortion law now in place is what people voted for. It wasn't - they voted for a change in the constitution. We were told abortions would be safe, legal and rare. They are legal, not always safe (reference one done in error) and certainly not rare (c. 7,000 a year). I believe we were totally conned by the pro choice side but I also accept there is no going back. Sadly abortions are now regarded as routine and no big deal.
A few things: Your vote wasn't misrepresented by anyone. None of us are that important. Your vote was counted is all.
The laws were proposed prior to the referendum. Did they include 'frequency?' No, thought not. Hence 'rare' wasn't codified in law.
Any medical procedure has risk. One abortion done in error, doesn't mean it was done unsafely. The choice might've been mistakenly made, that's the fault of the Irish medical system. As for 'rare', how many pregnancies (note: not births) were there? How many were aborted? Not births, pregnancies. You'll have to do some digging.
Be happy women have more control over their bodies in Ireland than ever before. You contributed to that via your vote. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
I don't know where you got the idea that they would be rare?!
I never saw that being said by anyone, I did however see, on many occasions, that approx 3000-3500 women travelled to the UK from Ireland, every year, to avail of terminations. And those were the ones who gave an Irish address, thousands of other women gave English addresses.
So, I would have presumed that if abortion was legal in this country there would be at least 3500 a year and most likely more.
I'm sure you saw all the figures for the numbers of women who were travelling to the UK to have abortions. Did you think that number was going to miraculously drop once abortion became available here? Or would you have been happy if few women had abortions in Ireland but continued to trek to the UK to have them?
My memory might be failing but a figure of 7000 a year is in line with the number that were occurring prior to the referendum. Along with the women giving irish addresses and those giving english addresses that you mentioned there was a figure given for the number of abortion pills imported every year. adding up those would give a number close to 7000. The number of abortions hasn't really changed it is just that women don't have to travel to have them or take unknown pills bought on the internet. A positive change all round.