Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

8th Amendment

1…4041434546…65

Comments

  • #1262
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You introduced this straw man to the conversation: Nobody - nobody - has ever tried to make the case that there's a mental health benefit to abortion.

    The whole question of leveraging suicide into the suite of risks to the life of the mother in order to work around the restrictions of the 8th amendment would be moot if we could keep the conversation focused on the core question, which is whether a woman has a right to choose not to be pregnant. All the red herrings of describing a blastocyst as a baby, or talking about abortion as a treatment for mental illness - these are "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" tactics.

    Should a woman have the right to not be pregnant, or is pregnancy a duty that overrides her fundamental right to bodily integrity? That's the question.

    Do you believe a woman should have access throughout the pregnancy?


  • #1263
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Do you believe a woman should have access throughout the pregnancy?
    At 23 weeks is acceptable according to some earlier in the thread.:mad:


  • #1264
    inocybe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭inocybe


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    At 23 weeks is acceptable according to some earlier in the thread.:mad:

    so is abortion at 23 weeks worse than at say 5 weeks. You certainly seem to be implying that, makes you sound a bit pro-choicey...


  • #1265
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    At 23 weeks is acceptable according to some earlier in the thread.:mad:

    So you think before 23 is acceptable? I'm proud of you learning to change. Well done!


  • #1266
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,176 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Hence the reason full time supervision needs to be considered in some cases.

    And how do you plan on carrying out this "full time supervision"?


  • Advertisement
  • #1267
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,176 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    At 23 weeks is acceptable according to some earlier in the thread.:mad:

    You do realise that at that point in the pregnancy, it's almost always aborted due to a serious threat to the mother's health?


  • #1268
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Hence the reason full time supervision needs to be considered in some cases.

    Would be happy to fund this? Would it be like house arrest or sent to jail or do you propose the pregnant woman be sent on a puppyfarm-esque "baby farm"?


  • #1269
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,176 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Would be happy to fund this? Would it be like house arrest or will the pregnant woman be sent on a puppyfarm-esque "baby farm"?

    I'm sure a certain pizza magnate would be willing to fund an ultramontanist terrorist group to take over Ireland these maximum-security maternity hospitals.


  • #1270
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Have you ever wondered why the Irish Times, and other media, never publish polls on repealing the 8th amendment in its entirety?

    They always publish polls which show that 60-70% of people agree with abortion where the unborn has a fatal abnormality, for example, but nothing about liberalizing abortion law in ordinary cases?

    Ever wonder why that is?

    Because it wouldn't pass.

    Good points on your posts. Another point to make is there is no Agreed international standard for abortion. Pro-Choice does not even know what they want want. Pro-Choice can be anything depending on the country or state. You get into a conversation with a person on abortion and you will never get the same answer in a pro-choice debate.. 8 week, 12 weeks, 38 weeks if the baby is disabled. etc.. Ok to abort a girl or not ok.. What standards.. There are none, humanity is subjective to societies changing mood.


  • #1271
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    And how do you plan on carrying out this "full time supervision"?

    Any person who is a potential danger to themselves can be detained, under psychiatric supervision in purpose built surroundings. were you not aware of this?


  • Advertisement
  • #1272
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Would be happy to fund this? Would it be like house arrest or sent to jail or do you propose the pregnant woman be sent on a puppyfarm-esque "baby farm"?

    We already pay for the secure supervision of the small minority of men and women who, in the view of the psychiatric community, are a direct threat to themselves.

    Of course I'm happy to fund this.


  • #1273
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Would be happy to fund this? Would it be like house arrest or sent to jail or do you propose the pregnant woman be sent on a puppyfarm-esque "baby farm"?
    Just answer this honestly, please.

    Do you think a person who is intent on taking their life is in a suitable state of mind to make major, possibly life-changing decisions?

    I thought it was normal to operate on the general assumption that a person who intends to commit suicide is in need of psychiatric help, because suicide is not a rational response to a stress in the life of an otherwise healthy individual.

    If someone is facing financial difficulty, and suddenly intends to commits suicide, we don't simply write their debts off. We say, 'what you are feeling is not a rational response to your situation.. please get counselling'.


  • #1274
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,228 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    conorh91 wrote: »
    If someone is facing financial difficulty, and suddenly intends to commits suicide, we don't simply write their debts off. We say, 'what you are feeling is not a rational response to your situation.. please get counselling'.
    This is quite simply not true. If someone is overwhelmed by their debt, no way do they get sent for psychiatric counselling, never mind getting locked up as Black Whatever said - they get financial counselling which may include getting various forms of help with rescheduling etc - and in some cases they are advised to walk away from the debt, ie bankruptcy.


    We don't wait until they attempt suicide before doing something about it. And they aren't required to prove that they are actually siucidal before being able to get help.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #1275
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,228 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Just answer this honestly, please.

    Do you think a person who is intent on taking their life is in a suitable state of mind to make major, possibly life-changing decisions?
    That's a fault in Irish law that makes women wait until their crisis pregnancy has made them suicidal - and then you would say "Oh but wait, now you're suicidal, you're not in the right state of mind to take such a decision"! :mad:

    We're not talking about someone who had previously been happy to be pregnant - we're talking about women like Miss Y who wanted an abortion right from the start, and only gradually did their distress cause their mental health to deteriorate to the point where suicide seemed like the only way out - because of the continuing pregnancy. That's a totally different situation from the one you're implying, where the woman only wanted the abortion after becoming suicidal.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #1276
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    volchitsa wrote: »
    This is quite simply not true. If someone is overwhelmed by their debt, no way do they get sent for psychiatric counselling, never mind getting locked up as Black Whatever said - they get financial counselling which may include getting various forms of help with rescheduling etc - and in some cases they are advised to walk away from the debt, ie bankruptcy.


    We don't wait until they attempt suicide before doing something about it. And they aren't required to prove that they are actually siucidal before being able to get help.

    Whatever?

    You can do better.


  • #1277
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    volchitsa wrote: »
    That's a fault in Irish law that makes women wait until their crisis pregnancy has made them suicidal - and then you would say "Oh but wait, now you're suicidal, you're not in the right state of mind to take such a decision"! :mad:

    We're not talking about someone who had previously been happy to be pregnant - we're talking about women like Miss Y who wanted an abortion right from the start, and only gradually did their distress cause their mental health to deteriorate to the point where suicide seemed like the only way out - because of the continuing pregnancy. That's a totally different situation from the one you're implying, where the woman only wanted the abortion after becoming suicidal.
    Do you believe abortion should be available throughout a pregnancy?


  • #1278
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    volchitsa wrote: »
    This is quite simply not true. If someone is overwhelmed by their debt, no way do they get sent for psychiatric counselling, never mind getting locked up as Black Whatever said - they get financial counselling
    I'm not talking about being overwhelmed by debt and going to a PIP or a solicitor.

    I'm talking about feelings of suicidal ideation in response to financial stress. If you go to your GP and say "Doctor, my turnover is down, I'm struggling to pay creditors, and I feel like I want to kill myself", he's not going to take out his pen and have your petition in the chancery list in the High Court next Monday morning. That may come, and the Court may or may not allow you to proceed, regardless of your psychiatric state of mind.

    Instead, what the doctor will do is refer you for counselling or drugs, because you are obviously not reacting to this stress in the way a healthy individual would react.

    Do you see the distinction I am drawing? When a person reacts to any stress by threatening suicide, the correct approach is not to delete the stress, it's to help them cope with it and work toward a resolution.


  • #1279
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,228 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Do you believe abortion should be available throughout a pregnancy?
    Depends on the reason. Late abortions, near viability, should be for serious medical etc reason only I think.

    What difference does that make - you seem to be suggesting early abortions are less bad than late ones - in which case we agree. Are you suddenly becoming pro-choice too? :D

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #1280
    eire4
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,972 ✭✭✭eire4


    Gael23 wrote: »
    Will we ever see a referendum to repeal this?



    I would say yes we will and can see it happening within the lifetime of the next government if said government proves stable enough.


  • #1281
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,228 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    conorh91 wrote: »
    I'm not talking about being overwhelmed by debt and going to a PIP or a solicitor.

    I'm talking about feelings of suicidal ideation in response to financial stress. If you go to your GP and say "Doctor, my turnover is down, I'm struggling to pay creditors, and I feel like I want to kill myself", he's not going to take out his pen and have your petition in the chancery list in the High Court next Monday morning. That may come, and you may or may not be able to proceed, regardless of your psychiatric state of mind.

    Instead, what the doctor will do is refer you for counselling or drugs, because you are obviously not reacting to this stress in the way a healthy individual would react.

    Do you see the distinction I am drawing? When a person reacts to any stress by threatening suicide, the correct approach is not to delete the stress, it's to help them cope with it and work toward a resolution.
    No I don't. The "distinction" you are trying to make is one where the person has gone for help to someone who can't help with the cause of the problem. Like going to a financial adviser for your arthritis.

    But what a doctor would do is treat the stress, whatever the cause, and advise you (he can't send you) to get financial help, which, importantly, is available without going to the doctor. The fact of choosing to go to the doctor instead of straight to financial advisors is significant, and that's why he can't just leave it to the financiers to sort out. You involved him by consulting.

    But the psychiatric help offered is not, and is not intended to be, a replacement for getting rid of your debt. Which is what you're claiming.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • Advertisement
  • #1282
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Depends on the reason. Late abortions, near viability, should be for serious medical etc reason only I think.

    What difference does that make - you seem to be suggesting early abortions are less bad than late ones - in which case we agree. Are you suddenly becoming pro-choice too? :D

    So, you'd deny women their right to bodily integrity in some circumstances?


  • #1283
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,228 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    So, you'd deny women their right to bodily integrity in some circumstances?
    Personally? Never. I leave those decisions to the people capable of taking them, doctors and their patients. But I do think the doctor can and should take into account if a fetus is now viable and could potentially live outside its mother's womb.

    Have I ever said any different?

    And why do you ask? Do you see a distinction between an early termination and a late one? I thought you thought they were all equally evil?

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #1284
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Personally? Never. I leave those decisions to the people capable of taking them, doctors and their patients. But I do think the doctor can and should take into account if a fetus is now viable and could potentially live outside its mother's womb.

    Have I ever said any different?

    And why do you ask? Do you see a distinction between an early termination and a late one? I thought you thought they were all equally evil?

    I'm confused now.

    First you said it 'depends on the reason'. Then you say you'd never prevent an abortion. But in the same post state consideration should be given to viability.

    Would you deny a woman an abortion at 34 weeks gestation if she decided she wanted it?


  • #1285
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    volchitsa wrote: »
    No I don't. The "distinction" you are trying to make is one where the person has gone for help to someone who can't help with the cause of the problem. Like going to a financial adviser for your arthritis.
    OK, lets pursue this approach then.

    So our suicidal friend walks into the High Court and makes a petition for bankruptcy, and is asked to pay the fee of €650 to the Official Assignee for costs and outlays. Our friend shrugs and says 'I can't pay, nor am I in a state of mind to complete the petition, but you must make me bankrupt, or I will kill myself'.

    What happens next? Should the Court assume this person is acting rationally, and suspend the procedures? No, someone should compassionately take the man aside and advise him to get professional help from a psychiatrist or counsellor.

    Of course, this is not a comparison with pregnancy, just an illustration that the logical response to a major stress is not to threaten suicide. A threat or intention to kill oneself should not be regarded as a rational response to a pregnancy, especially where that individual has already been raped, and is suffering a complex series of presumably harrowing emotions.

    I don't see how you can have been raped, be threatening suicide, and still be considered compos mentis. Run that one by me, would you...


  • #1286
    inocybe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭inocybe


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    I'm confused now.

    First you said it 'depends on the reason'. Then you say you'd never prevent an abortion. But in the same post state consideration should be given to viability.

    Would you deny a woman an abortion at 34 weeks gestation if she decided she wanted it?

    The fact that you are asking this shows that you know that a 34 weeks foetus should be considered as more than a 10 week one. Otherwise why would you keep pushing the late abortion questions?


  • #1287
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,228 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    I'm confused now.

    First you said it 'depends on the reason'. Then you say you'd never prevent an abortion. But in the same post state consideration should be given to viability.

    Would you deny a woman an abortion at 34 weeks gestation if she decided she wanted it?
    No, I'd neither grant it nor refuse it - I'm not qualified to decide that sort of thing. Same as if you were asking in what circumstances I would operate on someone's heart problems.

    But I'm glad to learn you agree that if a woman is going to have an abortion she should have it as early as possible.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #1288
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    inocybe wrote: »
    The fact that you are asking this shows that you know that a 34 weeks foetus should be considered as more than a 10 week one. Otherwise why would you keep pushing the late abortion questions?

    :)

    Would you like to tackle the question?

    Would you deny a women bodily integrity for any reason at 34 weeks gestation, or not? If she stated her wish to abort her baby?


  • #1289
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    volchitsa wrote: »
    No, I'm not qualified to decide that sort of thing. But I'm glad to learn you agree that if a woman is going to have an abortion she should have it as early as possible.

    So at 34 weeks you'd condone an abortion when the baby could be delivered alive and healthy?


  • #1290
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,228 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    So at 34 weeks you'd condone an abortion when the baby could be delivered alive and healthy?
    I don't understand your quesiton - babies are often born at 34 weeks - it's called birth. How would that be an abortion?

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • Advertisement
  • #1291
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I don't understand your quesiton - babies are often born at 34 weeks - it's called birth. How would that be an abortion?

    Apologies for confusing you.

    Let me be very clear in my question.

    If a mother, at 34 weeks gestation, sought an abortion, resulting in the intentional death of her unborn. You could foresee yourself condoning such an action, over delivering the baby girl, alive and well?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement