Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Do you think a referendum on abortion would be passed?(not how you'd vote)

1…1617192122…29

Comments

  • #542
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,785 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Itzy wrote: »
    At what stage in a pregnancy is Abortion considered Murder? When the Child is still forming or a functioning member of society?

    What's the relation between abortion and a fully functioning member of society?


  • #543
    L.Jenkins
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 19,242 Mod ✭✭✭✭L.Jenkins


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Society changing doesn't make something more or less morally just. Just as it will never be morally right to stab someone in the head if society deems it so

    The funny thing is, ISIS think it socially acceptable to toss Gay People off Buildings. We're not saying that with Abortion, People running out into the street to someone else will become acceptable.


  • #544
    L.Jenkins
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 19,242 Mod ✭✭✭✭L.Jenkins


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    What's the relation between abortion and a fully functioning member of society?

    An unborn Child.


  • #545
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Society changing doesn't make something more or less morally just. Just as it will never be morally right to stab someone in the head if society deems it so

    There are some things that won't ever become socially acceptable. Murder is one of them. Can you name any country where murder is legal? Do you see anything other than outrage when certain societies use excessive violence against their members? And yet abortion is available in some form or another in most of the developed world.


  • #546
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,785 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    eviltwin wrote: »
    There are some things that won't ever become socially acceptable. Murder is one of them. Can you name any country where murder is legal? Do you see anything other than outrage when certain societies use excessive violence against their members? And yet abortion is available in some form or another in most of the developed world.

    None of that has any relevance to morality. Who's to say it won't be socially acceptable in the future to cull population over growth for example? Would that be morally right regardless of whether it became socially acceptable or not?


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,785 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Itzy wrote: »
    An unborn Child.

    The original definition is applicable to both


  • #548
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Polling by RedC would suggest that the success of a referendum to repeal the eight depends on what legislation would then replace it. If it were to be replaced by something that allowed abortion on demand, it almost certainly wouldn't pass. If it were to be replaced by legislation that allowed abortion in the case of Fatal Foetal Abnormality, Rape, Incest, or a risk to the health of the mother, then it appears that it would pass convincingly.

    Labour's plan is just that, call a vote to repeal the eight but replace it with legislation that liberalises abortion in the above situations but does not permit abortion on demand
    Bryan Cox, Director at Red C Research and Marketing said: “81% percent of people were in favour of access to abortion beyond the current Irish legal position. This comprises the 36% who believe abortion should be allowed where the woman’s life is at risk, the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, where the woman’s health is at risk, or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality, and the 45% who would go further and allow women to access abortion as they choose. 9% were in favour of access just where the woman’s life is at risk, the current legal position.
    “What also struck us is how few respondents declined to answer questions or had no opinion. Clearly people have views they want to express.”
    Mr O’Gorman said: “Only 7% of those polled are opposed to abortion in all circumstances. Yet even in this group, only 31% agreed with the 14 year possible jail sentence for women having unlawful abortions, and only 43% with the possible 14 year jail term for doctors. So even those with the strongest personal opposition to abortion are opposed to Ireland’s harsh criminal penalty.”


  • #549
    L.Jenkins
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 19,242 Mod ✭✭✭✭L.Jenkins


    Well while you continue to argue for the unborn Child, what about the emotional well being of the woman? How about reading a first hand account from a woman who is also health care professional. http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-women-speak-out-in-anger-over-their-abortions-in-britain-148075335-237442461.html


  • #550
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    eviltwin wrote: »
    This is ridiculous. Abortion is not murder. Even in little old Ireland where abortion is illegal its not considered murder. There may be the issue of 14 years in prison for destroying the unborn or however it's phrased but it's well known that is aimed at those would be abortionists rather than women themselves. No Irish woman will be jailed for having an abortion, the public wouldn't stand for it. To compare it to killing a member of the public is nothing more than trying to reinforce a stigma that is thankfully on the decline.

    Too be fair and I am not agreeing with the poster here but AFAIK the killing of a baby isn't murder either (at least in recent history) it was infanticide which was a lesser charge.
    Murder in Ireland is a nebulous concept I personally know of of some people killed and one was manslaughter which would be definitely murder in a different jurisdiction.


  • #551
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    None of that has any relevance to morality. Who's to say it won't be socially acceptable in the future to cull population over growth for example? Would that be morally right regardless of whether it became socially acceptable or not?

    Morality is a personal thing especially in this issue. You can see yourself there is a massive diversity in views as to when an abortion is okay. Collectively there are things society as a whole condemns but abortion is not one of those issues no matter how much you try to make it so.


  • Advertisement
  • #552
    It wasnt me123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭It wasnt me123


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Polling by RedC would suggest that the success of a referendum to repeal the eight depends on what legislation would then replace it. If it were to be replaced by something that allowed abortion on demand, it almost certainly wouldn't pass. If it were to be replaced by legislation that allowed abortion in the case of Fatal Foetal Abnormality, Rape, Incest, or a risk to the health of the mother, then it appears that it would pass convincingly.

    Labour's plan is just that, call a vote to repeal the eight but replace it with legislation that liberalises abortion in the above situations but does not permit abortion on demand

    I think that all pro choice, myself included, should opt for this to ensure that the 8th is repealed. Its much harder to change the Constitution than to change legislation. Get it out of the constitution and then bombard our TD's to change legislation - and I think there is a European directive (?) that says Ireland should allow abortion.

    If we opt for the above, the wind would be out of the sails of the pro lifers - who's going to say that for rape/incest etc, that a woman shouldn't be allowed an abortion - most reasonable people think that abortion should be allowed on a small scale and this would probably get a yes in a Referendum. Get it out of the Constitution and work on the legislation.


  • #553
    sheesh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,082 ✭✭✭sheesh


    MilesMorales1 wrote: »
    *ponders* yes, probably. Can't of think why anyone would vote against it these days.

    It would still be a maybe I would say. Plenty people would vote no.


  • #554
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »
    The father should be allowed to choose not to pay maintenance for the child once he expresses that he doesn't want anything to do with it and wants a termination to occur.

    It's hypocritical and unfair to have a situation where the woman can absolve herself of responsibility but the man can't.

    Again, for the terminally confused/determinedly oblivious:
    The "legal abortion" described is not analogous to abortion, it is codified child abandonment.

    If the carrier of the pregnancy has an abortion, there is no baby to be supported by either parent - no ongoing responsibility to provide care or money for either parent.
    If the non-carrier of the pregnancy has a "legal abortion", then there is still a baby to be supported - responsibility for providing 100% of care and financial support carried by one parent.

    The two scenarios are not remotely comparable


  • #555
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Because I used the word murder in relation to abortion, which isn't wrong by it's definition, and got pulled up on it

    Actually, you got pulled up on using a definition of murder so broad that we would all be guilty of it.

    Killing of a "living being", indeed.


  • #556
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,524 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    We weren't talking about the legal definition, but the definition of murder in general. I never said it fit within the framework of the current legal definition, but by the standards of dictionary/original definitions


    Well I'm glad you cleared that up, because for a while there I hadn't a clue what you meant by equating abortion with murder without clarifying that you were not referring to either in a legal context. Without that clarification, you could call abortion whatever you like, with no need to "pussyfoot around it", but the only definition that would matter, is the legal definition of abortion, in relation to any proposed amendment to the Irish Constitution. In that specific context, your definition of abortion, claiming it to be murder, is meaningless and quite frankly ill informed.


  • #557
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,785 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Morality is a personal thing especially in this issue. You can see yourself there is a massive diversity in views as to when an abortion is okay. Collectively there are things society as a whole condemns but abortion is not one of those issues no matter how much you try to make it so.

    Who is to say society as a whole will reject a culling of the population in the far off future? Will that make it morally justifiable in your opinion? Morality is effectively the difference between right and wrong. If you think self interest comes before giving an unborn baby you created a chance at life, and is morally justifiable, then I really do worry about you and others of the same opinion. Because in most cases that's all it really boils down to, self interest and "me, me, me" (unless you are going to claim health complications are the reason for the majority of abortions?).


  • #558
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,785 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Actually, you got pulled up on using a definition of murder so broad that we would all be guilty of it.

    Killing of a "living being", indeed.

    Misrepresenting what I said again? The "living being" was a direct reference to the unborn baby. Try to keep up. Well I don't know who you're going around murdering if the actions of what constitutes a broad definition of murder is the norm and one we're all guilty of


  • #559
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Misrepresenting what I said again?

    Again? When did I allegedly do it before?
    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    The "living being" was a direct reference to the unborn baby.

    Yes, I understand that, but you defined abortion as:
    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    ...the killing of a living being, so it's for me and many others it's murder.

    Thereby classifying the unborn a "living being" (true), defining abortion as the killing of a living being (inaccurate) and murder as the same (inaccurate).
    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Try to keep up.

    I'll do my best.
    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Well I don't know who you're going around murdering if the actions of what constitutes a broad definition of murder is the norm and one we're all guilty of

    If murder is the killing of living beings then any of us who has stepped on a snail is guilty. Hell, digesting gut flora could qualify.


  • #560
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,785 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Again? When did I allegedly do it before?



    Yes, I understand that, but you defined abortion as:



    Thereby classifying the unborn a "living being" (true), defining abortion as the killing of a living being (inaccurate) and murder as the same (inaccurate).



    I'll do my best.



    If murder is the killing of living beings then any of us who has stepped on a snail is guilty. Hell, digesting gut flora could qualify.

    You do realise murder is in relation to another human? So how can the snail be applicable to a murder analogy? The "living being" was directly in relation to the unborn baby, I never said it in a greater context of all living beings as well you know.


  • #561
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Itzy wrote: »
    How does that fit within this thread and the discussion on Abortion?

    Because the majority of pro life people believe it is tantamount to murder as it id the unnecessary and wilful destruction of a human life. How do people still have difficulty understanding that this is the core belief of most pro life people?


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,643 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    Because the majority of pro life people believe it is tantamount to murder as it id the unnecessary and wilful destruction of a human life. How do people still have difficulty understanding that this is the core belief of most pro life people?
    But if they really believe that, why aren't they protesting outside IVF clinics?

    And why do most of them claim not to want to punish these women going around boasting about the murder(s) they've committed? A pro-life march in Dublin a year or so ago cheered two women to the rafters for talking about how much they regretted their abortions. (I think one had had two abortions, maybe even both of them had.)

    Would they take the same attitude to a "reformed" child murderer who had never gone to prison for his actions? Clearly not.

    So we just don't believe you when you claim to believe it's tantamount to murder, because your own words and actions completely contradict that claim.

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • #563
    thattequilagirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,158 ✭✭✭thattequilagirl


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Who is to say society as a whole will reject a culling of the population in the far off future? Will that make it morally justifiable in your opinion? Morality is effectively the difference between right and wrong. If you think self interest comes before giving an unborn baby you created a chance at life, and is morally justifiable, then I really do worry about you and others of the same opinion. Because in most cases that's all it really boils down to, self interest and "me, me, me" (unless you are going to claim health complications are the reason for the majority of abortions?).

    It's a circular argument.

    Ultimately, pro-lifers consider the pregnancy to be an unborn baby from the moment of conception, while pro-choice people don't.

    If I saw the foetus in the first trimester as a baby, then yes, I would consider it immoral to abort, but I don't.


  • #564
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    volchitsa wrote: »
    But if they really believe that, why aren't they protesting outside IVF clinics?

    Is that the issue for you? I take it by the fact you are typing away in Ireland that you have no issue with the way Syrian civilians are being massacared. I mean if you did you would be over there protesting wouldn't you?
    volchitsa wrote: »
    And why do most of them claim not to want to punish these women going around boasting about the murder(s) they've committed? A pro-life march in Dublin a year or so ago cheered two women to the rafters for talking about how much they regretted their abortions. (I think one had had two abortions, maybe even both of them had.)

    I've already answered that earlier in the thread. As you may know, pregnancy puts a massive strain on a woman, both physically and mentally and can push someone to desperation.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    Would they take the same attitude to a "reformed" child murderer who had never gone to prison for his actions? Clearly not.

    Yet a woman who commits infanticide due to postpartum depression is not sent to prison.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    So we just don't believe you when you claim to believe it's tantamount to murder, because your own words and actions completely contradict that claim.

    I don't think I've ever compared it to murder myself. I just tried to explain the fundamental pro life stance to the poster. And I'm not sure how you know my words or actions. I'm don't think we've ever met. Maybe try not to make so many assumptions about people simply because they don't tow your line.


  • #565
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    thattequilagirl wrote: »
    It's a circular argument.

    Ultimately, pro-lifers consider the pregnancy to be an unborn baby from the moment of conception, while pro-choice people don't.

    This is the fundamental reason we will never come to a consensus on this issue. Unless there is a concerted effort to move these two positions closer this issue will continue to be the messiest one for politicians and one they will consistently try to avoid, which is detrimental to everyone.


  • #566
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,819 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    Yet a woman who commits infanticide due to postpartum depression is not sent to prison.
    I am sure you realise that doesn't contain any kind of response to the point though.

    While the majority of pro-life people might consider it tantamount to murder, they still cheered to the rafters a woman who regretted an abortion.

    Do you think their reaction would be the same or different if it was a child murderer who regretted that murder?

    If you feel that their reaction would be different, in that their response to a woman who admitted having an abortion would be more forgiving and supportive, you have to examine that 'tantamount to murder' position in a bit more detail.


  • #567
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,643 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    volchitsa wrote: »
    But if they really believe that, why aren't they protesting outside IVF clinics?

    Is that the issue for you? I take it by the fact you are typing away in Ireland that you have no issue with the way Syrian civilians are being massacared. I mean if you did you would be over there protesting wouldn't you?

    Sorry can you explain what exactly you're saying here, I'm not sure I get where you're coming from? If I object to a proposal to legalize, say, child marriage in Ireland, are you saying it would be hypocritical of me if I didn't also protest outside the Yemeni or Somali embassy for allowing it in their countries? Surely we can only be considered responsible for our own laws, whatever we may think about other countries' laws?

    Because last time I looked, IVF clinics operate openly in Ireland, and they destroy embryos. So if (as you claimed) pro-life posters believe that destroying unborn life is "tantamount to murder" then what moral difference is there between implanted and unimplanted embryos?

    (I do get that the law makes that distinction, btw, but I gather that you were talking about the morality -the spirit of the law, if you like- and not just where the law itself stands.)
    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    I've already answered that earlier in the thread. As you may know, pregnancy puts a massive strain on a woman, both physically and mentally and can push someone to desperation.

    Yet a woman who commits infanticide due to postpartum depression is not sent to prison.

    Sometimes she is, she will certainly be tried and only if she is judged to have had her balance of mind disturbed at the time can she expect not to get a prison sentence. So shouldn't women who have abortions have to fulfill the same criteria, i.e. be tried first, and if necessary cautioned, released or given psychiatric help? Would a woman who killed a newborn be left in charge of her other children without serious psychiatric evaluation? Yet women who are know to have had abortions are not considered to be a danger to their other children.
    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    I don't think I've ever compared it to murder myself. I just tried to explain the fundamental pro life stance to the poster. And I'm not sure how you know my words or actions. I'm don't think we've ever met. Maybe try not to make so many assumptions about people simply because they don't tow your line.
    I made that (IMO reasonable) assumption because I take it from your posts that you are pro-life, so I assumed you were including yourself in it.

    It's always odd, and IMO pointless, discussing these things with people who constantly claim to speak for others but refuse to give their own views. (I've put a couple of them on ignore for that reason because IMO it's completely uninteresting to try to discuss such an emotional subject with someone who refuses to be upfront about their own views while claiming to know what others think.)

    So perhaps instead of telling us what other people think (I think we already knew that anyway) why don't you tell us why, if you don't think it's murder, what you think pregnancy termination is, and why - despite it not being murder - you still think you and others should have the right to prevent women from terminating unwanted pregnancies.

    After all, you wouldn't think (I assume - I hope I'm not making too many assumptions about you again!) that you have the right to prevent them from using contraception, would you? So why abortion - given that it's not "tantamount to murder" that is?

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • #568
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,524 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So we just don't believe you when you claim to believe it's tantamount to murder, because your own words and actions completely contradict that claim.


    When you say "we" there, do you mean "I", as in you don't believe that poster?

    I don't think there's anything to be gained from asking "well if they believe X, why aren't they doing Y? Why are they not doing Z?", etc. It doesn't take a genius to figure that people aren't always going to be consistent according to someone else's standards and true to other people's standards.

    thattequilagirl wrote: »
    Ultimately, pro-lifers consider the pregnancy to be an unborn baby from the moment of conception, while pro-choice people don't.


    I wouldn't be too sure about that either. This is why I don't bother with simplistic labels like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" or "anti-choice" and "pro-abortion" when it comes to discussing the issue of abortion, because simplistic labels like that are ultimately meaningless and divisive, taking no account of just how nuanced people's opinions really are when it comes to the issue of abortion.

    I've met plenty of people who call themselves pro-choice, advocating that it should be a woman's right to choose, but only up to a certain point, usually somewhere between 12 and 24 weeks. After that, suddenly the woman should have no choice in the matter... according to their standards at least.

    I don't particularly care whether a person chooses to call themselves pro-life or pro-choice or whatever they want to call themselves as I don't think it's particularly relevant. I think what's more important is understanding where that person is coming from and why they feel the way they do.

    My wife for instance is completely against the idea of abortion, for numerous reasons. I don't think about whether she's pro-life or pro-choice and why isn't she out doing this or that or whatever else. She doesn't have to. Is that not the whole point of choice? My wife isn't some callous wench clutching to a bunch of rosary beads and championing women who express regrets about having had an abortion, and characterisations like that don't really help anyone, nor does she think women who have had an abortion are murderers.

    Most people have far more nuanced views than either extreme that one side or the other tries to make them out to be.


  • #569
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    I've already answered that earlier in the thread. As you may know, pregnancy puts a massive strain on a woman, both physically and mentally and can push someone to desperation.

    What about a woman who very rationally decides she doesn't want to continue with the pregnancy and has an abortion. Is she a murderer seeing as she's not acting out of desperation?


  • #570
    jeamimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 157 ✭✭jeamimus


    thattequilagirl wrote: »

    Ultimately, pro-lifers consider the pregnancy to be an unborn baby from the moment of conception, while pro-choice people don't.

    If I saw the foetus in the first trimester as a baby, then yes, I would consider it immoral to abort, but I don't.


    This is the bottom line. There can be no middle ground. Talk about rape etc is irrelevant. Ultimately, it will come down to whether the electorate follows catholic theology or not. Strangely, despite all the anti-catholic feeling and low church attendances, I do think yet another abortion referendum would be lost.


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    CaraMay
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭CaraMay


    jeamimus wrote: »
    This is the bottom line. There can be no middle ground. Talk about rape etc is irrelevant. Ultimately, it will come down to whether the electorate follows catholic theology or not. Strangely, despite all the anti-catholic feeling and low church attendances, I do think yet another abortion referendum would be lost.

    Clearly because the majority of people don't agree with it.

    I've seen in other posts where people, faced with a surprise pregnancy, would have an abortion because they are on shift work and it wouldn't suit. Wtf?


Advertisement