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

volchitsa · 06-03-2016 01:44PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

No, I was replying to this question :

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?

and including myself among "people (who) have difficulty" accepting that this is genuinely the "core belief of most pro-life people" - for the reasons I gave, among others.

(Although interestingly, Little Cuchulainn is now declaring himself either to be pro-choice or else to be one of a "minority" if pro-lifers who don't believe abortion to be tantamount to murder.)

[

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

That's a fair point concerning people's personal business. It's very different however when someone is claiming that he is entitled to interfere in other people's private business because his personal morality requires it.

In that case, it's absolutely relevant, and indeed essential, to expect such people to be able to justify the basis of their alleged entitlement when considering whether or not it's a reasonable demand.

[

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure what your point is, other than to say that not all anti-choice people are nasty misogynists (and I agree - although a significant number are, and of those who aren't, most are more influenced by whatever remains of their religious education than they wish to acknowledge, possibly even to themselves) - and, secondly, you are trying to draw a false equivalence between allowing people to live their private lives as they wish and control freakery which demands control other people's lives as well as their own.

If those are your points, I disagree. If you were saying something else, perhaps you could rephrase?

Penny Tration · 06-03-2016 01:57PM

CaraMay wrote: »

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?

If you're against abortion, what does the reason for someone wanting one matter? Surely all are invalid reasons if you're pro life?

CaraMay · 06-03-2016 02:01PM

Penny Tration wrote: »

If you're against abortion, what does the reason for someone wanting one matter? Surely all are invalid reasons if you're pro life?

You seem to like putting words into people's mouths. It just makes me wonder what value people have on life if your work shift and inconvenience trumps a new human life.

Penny Tration · 06-03-2016 02:04PM

CaraMay wrote: »

You seem to like putting words into people's mouths. It just makes me wonder what value people have on life if your work shift and inconvenience trumps a new human life.

Where did I put words in your mouth? I asked you two questions, actually.

What you've said about value on life is the core issue here, and one that both sides of the debate have totally opposing views on - most people who would have an abortion, do not see life as beginning at conception. Most pro life people see it as absolutely beginning at conception. so for someone choosing abortion, it's got nothing to do with valuing human life, because in that person's eyes, life does not begin at conception

Tasden · 06-03-2016 02:04PM

CaraMay wrote: »

You seem to like putting words into people's mouths. It just makes me wonder what value people have on life if your work shift and inconvenience trumps a new human life.

Babies cost a lot of money. If they can't go to work how do you expect the baby to be cared for?

Penny Tration · 06-03-2016 02:05PM

Tasden wrote: »

Babies cost a lot of money. If they can't go to work how do you expect the baby to be cared for?

Pro life people don't tend to care about that. once the baby is born, they're happy. Who cares what kind of life it has?

volchitsa · 06-03-2016 02:05PM

CaraMay wrote: »

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?

I know someone in real life decide to have a baby because her younger sister had had one. And as for some of the reasons why people decide to get married.... But so what? The reasons why people do things are their own business, even if you or I would disapprove of their reasons.

But if you agree that terminating a pregnancy at say 12 weeks is acceptable for some reasons then what difference does it make that other people will find entirely different reasons equally convincing?

CaraMay · 06-03-2016 02:17PM

Tasden wrote: »

Babies cost a lot of money. If they can't go to work how do you expect the baby to be cared for?

They didn't say they couldn't go to work, just they it wouldn't suit that well.

RDM_83 again · 06-03-2016 02:18PM

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.

While this is an issue that in terms of the deeper questions about the ethics behind it I think in practicality it is more nuanced and people understand that.

I don't think that a vote on this would simply hinge on people following Catholic doctrine people do have their own opinions on the issue of bodily autonomy vs rights of fetus/baby/embryo.

I think there is two things that will be very important if there is a vote on this.
Firstly there will be a large"Shy Tory" effect among the younger electorate, I'm see pro-choice/abortion rights stuff popping up on my facebook feed regularly I never see pro-life stuff yet I know that several of my friends (who don't fit the stereotype at all) are actually quite pro-life.

Secondly those that are strongly pro-choice may actually be a hindrance to those trying to increase abortion availability in Ireland. You can see this in the thread, there is a fair few posters advocating positions that polling shows would be very unpopular with voters.
I'm not quite sure where I fit on the spectrum on this issue but the fact that we are next door to a country (the UK) where a legal framework relating to abortion is applied in a manner that is very different to what it was intended originally means that the whole widely mocked (by some) argument about a slippery slope if constitutional safeguards are removed actually has a point.

Strident declarations that pro-lifers hate woman and that abortion is a fundamental right aren't going to influence the middle ground, what might influence them is an argument based on the fact that if there was at least some level of "choice" based abortion subject to various checks, the rate of later term abortions might actually decrease.

volchitsa · 06-03-2016 02:38PM

CaraMay wrote: »

They didn't say they couldn't go to work, just they it wouldn't suit that well.

So if they send you their payslips to prove they're in major debt, will you give them your agreement then?

Why would they have to prove it to anyone though, isn't it their own decision?

volchitsa · 06-03-2016 02:44PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

the fact that we are next door to a country (the UK) where a legal framework relating to abortion is applied in a manner that is very different to what it was intended originally means that the whole widely mocked (by some) argument about a slippery slope if constitutional safeguards are removed actually has a point.

I accept that much of what you're say may be correct, but I think this is a misrepresentation of the situation in the UK : the reason that abortion is effectively available on demand even though that is not what was hypothetically intended is not some sort of inevitable legal slippery slope, it's quite simply because British society has changed more than the law has.

So a law which initially was intended to restrict abortion has been expanded to become effectively abortion on demand - but only because that was what the British public and government were happy with. Other countries like Poland have a much more restrictive law (but not as restrictive as Ireland) and there has been no similar slippery slope.

It's like divorce or contraception etc : access becomes more available when a majority of people feel that is necessary. If the majority didn't want that to happen, it wouldn't.

PhoenixParker · 06-03-2016 02:45PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

PhoenixParker wrote:

Fewer than 1% of abortions are carried out in the third trimester and the vast majority of those cases are the termination of a desired pregnancy due to life limiting conditions and health concerns with respect to the mother.

This is actually a good example of how misinformation either deliberate or accidentally is used by BOTH sides in this debate to further their own stances.
How do you know the above, where are you referring to etc because the actual information shows that late term abortions are carried out for social reasons

Since you asked.

I was most specifically referring to the England and Wales statistics contained here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/433437/2014_Commentary__5_.pdf

Grounds C & D - General all purpose "because I want an abortion" category (up to and including 24 weeks)
Grounds A - Risk of death to the mother
Grounds B - Risk to health of the mother
Grounds E - Risk of disability in the fetus

Key points as follows:

The total number of abortions was 184,571. (Page 5)
In 2014, the vast majority (98%; 179,967) of abortions were undertaken under ground C. A
further 2% were carried out under ground E (3,099) and a similar proportion (1%: 1,249)
under ground D, Grounds A and B together accounted for about a tenth of one per cent of
abortions (252). (Page 13)
Abortions where gestation has exceeded its twenty-fourth week account for less than 0.1%
of the total. There were 211 such abortions in 2014 (See Table 5 and Table 9a).
In 2014, 1,193 abortions performed at 22 weeks and over (Page 18, all grounds)
Table C on page 19 summarises hospital stays by gestational week. 2% of all abortions happen at 20 weeks or later (all grounds).
In 2014, no abortions at 24 weeks gestation were performed under ground C (page 16)

On the last point, ground C is the grounds under which general abortion is allowed in England & Wales. It allows for abortion basically on demand up to the end of the 24th week. However we can see clearly from the list that by that point anyone opting for abortion is registered under one of the other grounds related to threats to their own health or threats to disability in the fetus.

Overall 211/184751 = 0.11% of abortions are taking place after week 24, of which fewer again will be in the 3rd trimester and there's a clear pattern that those choosing abortion for ground C reasons are doing so well before the cut off point.

While the report doesn't explicitly state that reasons for later abortions are due to medical rather than social reasons, the pattern of a drop in grounds C abortions at later weeks in pregnancy is very clear.

RDM_83 again · 06-03-2016 03:02PM

^^^^
In relation to the above, its unfortunate that the original link is dead but it can be seen from the summary results of the survey (which was not carried out by a pro-life group) that those choosing late term abortion (pre-24 weeks) are mainly doing so for social reasons.
There is an increase in abortion on other grounds but as your own data shows as class C makes up 90% of an abortions an increase in the other groups in no way implies a majority.

Edit: Actually I think we are talking at different time periods, your talking about 3rd trimester I am talking about late term 20-24 weeks. Incidentaly its worth noting what is considered a severe disability that justifies abortion past the time limits. You may not like the Telegraphs politics but its not the Mail and the data behind this article is solid (basically how cleft palate is used to justify abortion but is under reported)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9845780/Cleft-lip-abortions-10-times-as-common-as-reported.html

One eyed Jack · 06-03-2016 03:09PM

volchitsa wrote: »

(Although interestingly, Little Cuchulainn is now declaring himself either to be pro-choice or else to be one of a "minority" if pro-lifers who don't believe abortion to be tantamount to murder.)

I don't think Little Cuchulainn has declared herself to be either pro-choice or pro-life either way. I think she was simply explaining one of the main reasons why people who declare themselves to be pro-life, are opposed to abortion on the basis that they view it as tantamount to murder. Morally (and because morality is subjective and only relevant to the individual who bases their opinion on their morality), they're not wrong (they can't be wrong, because morality is subjective), and if a person is against the idea of other people imposing their morals on other people, then surely by their own standards, they probably shouldn't be doing it themselves by pointing out that a person should be doing so and so if they believe such and such!

That's a fair point concerning people's personal business. It's very different however when someone is claiming that he is entitled to interfere in other people's private business because his personal morality requires it.

In that case, it's absolutely relevant, and indeed essential, to expect such people to be able to justify the basis of their alleged entitlement when considering whether or not it's a reasonable demand.

But they're not directly interfering in other people's private business when they are exercising their democratic right to vote on an amendment to the constitution and whether it should be repealed or not. The Irish Constitution is everyone's business, it's not a private matter. You're trying to use the same argument that was used in the A, B, C case, where it was determined that while an abortion itself is a private matter, legislating for abortion, isn't (I can't get the exact wording of the conclusions of the ECHR right now as I'm on mobile but that was the general gist of it).

I'm not sure what your point is, other than to say that not all anti-choice people are nasty misogynists (and I agree - although a significant number are, and of those who aren't, most are more influenced by whatever remains of their religious education than they wish to acknowledge, possibly even to themselves)

Are they? Or is that simply what you prefer to believe? I don't think people as individuals morality when it comes to abortion is as influenced by religion as you'd like to believe. I've found myself that often times that's an assumption and a generalisation that simply has no merit whatsoever. Perhaps your assumption is based on the fact that people disagreeing with your opinion means their opinion aligns with common religious morality. That'd only be an assumption of correlation, rather than proof of causation.

It certainly doesn't hold true in either mine or my wife's case because I don't base my morality regarding abortion on my religious beliefs, and my wife doesn't base her morality regarding abortion on her lack of religious beliefs.

and, secondly, you are trying to draw a false equivalence between allowing people to live their private lives as they wish and control freakery which demands control other people's lives as well as their own.

Nope, I wasn't drawing any equivalence at all. The false equivalence is drawn by people who equate the right to live their private lives as they wish, with legislating for an issue that is of public interest. That's not just my opinion btw, but it was the opinion of the ECHR in the A, B, C case (or the general gist of It anyway).

RDM_83 again · 06-03-2016 03:16PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I accept that much of what you're say may be correct, but I think this is a misrepresentation of the situation in the UK : the reason that abortion is effectively available on demand even though that is not what was hypothetically intended is not some sort of inevitable legal slippery slope, it's quite simply because British society has changed more than the law has.

So a law which initially was intended to restrict abortion has been expanded to become effectively abortion on demand - but only because that was what the British public and government were happy with. Other countries like Poland have a much more restrictive law (but not as restrictive as Ireland) and there has been no similar slippery slope.

It's like divorce or contraception etc : access becomes more available when a majority of people feel that is necessary. If the majority didn't want that to happen, it wouldn't.

Hmmm I am not sure about this, take the moves to reduce the limits to 20 weeks in the UK, they were comprehensively defeated in the House of Commons (I did a quick google and its by a 100 votes), public opinion on that issue in the UK is split evenly on the issue (depending which survey you look at) which doesn't obviously reflect on how the political classes feel.

Little CuChulainn · 06-03-2016 03:43PM

osarusan wrote: »

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.

Didn't I just say no to that same question already? Like I said, the situations are different. In the same way not all murders are treated the same. Some are mitigated, some are excused completely. Of course there are some who don't recognise that and will target doctors and clinics for violence in the same way people target known sex offenders and child abusers. Do you prefer thinking of all pro life people in that way? Why do you insist on trying to simplify such a complex issue?

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

You're the one that suggested that you can't be against something unless you are actively and publicly protest against it.

volchitsa wrote: »

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.)

But there is opposition to that kind of thing. How stunted is research and medical progress int he USA because of opposition at the highest levels to things such as stem cell research?

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

Depends on who you ask really. There are many who would consider them unfit or unworthy. You seem to be trying to mix law with opinion to try and make a point. There is no similar process for assessing a person after an abortion as there is for legally assessing after infanticide. Are you suggesting pro life groups should hold trials to assess the mental fitness of people they are going to have talk against abortion? Or is it that you think the government should assess parents who have had abortions as to wether they are fit to be parents? What exactly is your point here?

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

I'm definitely pro life, I just don't believe life starts at conception. I think that at a certain stage of development an unborn child should be treated as a person with all the inherent rights of any other person.

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

What I find odd is that, despite claiming to know what way others think, pro choice people often ignore what is the core belief of the pro life movement.

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

See I think what your issue is is that you assume all pro life people are religious. Religion may have played a part in their decision about life beginning at conception alright but I think most are fundamentally focused on the protection of the unborn due to social conscience as much as anything.

eviltwin wrote: »

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?

There are many who would think yes. Although I think the more religious of them would look at it more as someone who was under pressure but just didn't realise it.

volchitsa wrote: »

That's a fair point concerning people's personal business. It's very different however when someone is claiming that he is entitled to interfere in other people's private business because his personal morality requires it.

In that case, it's absolutely relevant, and indeed essential, to expect such people to be able to justify the basis of their alleged entitlement when considering whether or not it's a reasonable demand.

And we're back to ignoring the fundamentals of the opposing argument. If you saw a child being abused by a parent you would do something about it. You would also expect the government to do something about it. And you would expect the laws to be there to allow them do something about it. This is the pro life view, they just expect the protection of the child to begin earlier than you do.

osarusan · 06-03-2016 04:38PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Didn't I just say no to that same question already? Like I said, the situations are different. In the same way not all murders are treated the same. Some are mitigated, some are excused completely. Of course there are some who don't recognise that and will target doctors and clinics for violence in the same way people target known sex offenders and child abusers. Do you prefer thinking of all pro life people in that way? Why do you insist on trying to simplify such a complex issue?

Simplify?

I pointed out that what you said didn't contain any response to the point you quoted.

My point is that the 'tantamount to murder' line is itself a simplification of a position on a complex issue.

SeanW · 06-03-2016 05:05PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

A man can walk away from that responsibility- and many do - but genetically he is the father.

How do they do so?

thattequilagirl wrote: »

It's not hypocritical- I've said straight out its unequal. That's why this entire debate is framed as a woman's right to choose.

This seems to perfectly summarise modern Feminism. All about rights, zero about responsibility, the latter of which is dumped onto others.

Genetically and legally the man has fathered a child. Do you really think he should be able to say "I'm not giving her a penny. I wanted her to have an abortion so it's not my problem."

Yes. She chose to have the child (and not put it up for adoption, and in your perfect world, also neglected the choice to have a termination) despite not knowing the fathers wishes, or perhaps even against his wishes. If she has the right to make a different choice, e.g. abortion, adoption etc, then it should only logically follow that she has the responsibility to live with that choice.

CaraMay wrote: »

You say a woman shouldn't be forced to have a baby so why should a man? Double standards?

Yes, this is pretty much a summary of modern feminism. Most feminist viewpoints can be summarised as: "I want equality, rights and special treatment, but only for my group." You've just seen a shining example of it here.

volchitsa · 06-03-2016 05:07PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Didn't I just say no to that same question already? Like I said, the situations are different. In the same way not all murders are treated the same. Some are mitigated, some are excused completely. Of course there are some who don't recognise that and will target doctors and clinics for violence in the same way people target known sex offenders and child abusers. Do you prefer thinking of all pro life people in that way? Why do you insist on trying to simplify such a complex issue?

They're not "mitigated" without even a preliminary legal investigation to whether or not charges should be filed though. That just doesn't make sense, if it's seen as comparable to murder. That just would not happen - if you "possibly murder" someone, you will be tried, and unless you have a very solid justification, you'll go to jail. If someone says they think abortion is equivalent to murder but that women committing this form of murder should never be arrested, then it's really not an oversimplication to ask why not.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You're the one that suggested that you can't be against something unless you are actively and publicly protest against it.

Same jurisdiction, same legislature, same voters versus any random country in the world. You don't see a difference?

You're grasping at straws there.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

But there is opposition to that kind of thing. How stunted is research and medical progress int he USA because of opposition at the highest levels to things such as stem cell research?

We were talking about Ireland, I suggest we stick to that for now? There's quite enough to be going on with in Ireland, IMO.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Depends on who you ask really. There are many who would consider them unfit or unworthy. You seem to be trying to mix law with opinion to try and make a point. There is no similar process for assessing a person after an abortion as there is for legally assessing after infanticide. Are you suggesting pro life groups should hold trials to assess the mental fitness of people they are going to have talk against abortion? Or is it that you think the government should assess parents who have had abortions as to wether they are fit to be parents? What exactly is your point here?

As with your inability to distinguish between your responsibility for what happens in the country whose legislature you vote for and all other countries around, I suspect you can see the point very clearly but simply don't wish to.

The claim that abortion is "tantamount to murder" can be tested by looking at how murder is considered and how abortion is considered.

By that test, no-one I know of in the media or elsewhere in Ireland acts as though they believe abortion really is tantamount to murder.

So I think it's reasonable to disbelieve their claim. As I think it reasonable to disbelieve someone who claims to be a vegan despite tucking into a Big Mac for lunch every day.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I'm definitely pro life, I just don't believe life starts at conception. I think that at a certain stage of development an unborn child should be treated as a person with all the inherent rights of any other person.

At what stage, as a matter of interest?

And do you feel sure enough of your opinion to feel entitled to vote to impose it on others? If so, what grounds do you have for thinking the stage you identify is more correct than, say, the stage I might identify (assuming them to be different)?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What I find odd is that, despite claiming to know what way others think, pro choice people often ignore what is the core belief of the pro life movement.

I think you're confusing "ignore" with "dismiss as untrue, judging by pro-life's people's own words and actions" (see vegans and Big Macs above)

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

See I think what your issue is is that you assume all pro life people are religious. Religion may have played a part in their decision about life beginning at conception alright but I think most are fundamentally focused on the protection of the unborn due to social conscience as much as anything.

And yet they clearly aren't, since the pro-life movement as a whole has nothing to say about the many inequalities in our society, only about preventing abortion on Irish soil. NIMBY abortions, in other words.

One may be pro-life and also be motivated by social justice, but the pro-life movement itself is not. One can just as easily claim that the pro-choice movement is motivated by social justice. More so, since it tends to be associated with left wing politics, i.e. originating in and deeply influenced by social justice questions.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

There are many who would think yes. Although I think the more religious of them would look at it more as someone who was under pressure but just didn't realise it.

I thought you said it wasn't about religion?

And why would that make them decide that a person was so much stupider than they were that they could identify someone's real feelings better than the person themselves could - without ever having met them!

You attribute a level of arrogance to religious people that I suspect many will find insulting.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

And we're back to ignoring the fundamentals of the opposing argument. If you saw a child being abused by a parent you would do something about it. You would also expect the government to do something about it. And you would expect the laws to be there to allow them do something about it. This is the pro life view, they just expect the protection of the child to begin earlier than you do.

Well exactly. You would.

So when someone says that someone else must actually suffer harm in the name of child protection, but that the neighbouring IVF clinic can be allowed to destroy as many of those same "children" as required to maximize its profits, then one is entitled to call Bullsh1t on the claim that it's about child protection at all.

Tasden · 06-03-2016 05:21PM

SeanW wrote: »

How do they do so?.

There are plenty of men all over the country (and women too for that matter) who don't pay a penny towards their children or have any involvement in their child's upbringing.

Even when brought to court for maintenance, if they are on social welfare all they have to do is say they can't afford to pay. The main carer doesn't have that luxury, they are somehow expected to be able to provide for the child financially themselves. And the court can't force any parent to be actively involved in the child's upbringing so if the dad doesn't want to help out with all that being a parent entails then he doesn't have to.

SeanW · 06-03-2016 05:45PM

Tasden wrote: »

Even when brought to court for maintenance, if they are on social welfare all they have to do is say they can't afford to pay.

So, your argument is that a man has to be pretty much at the very bottom of society to avoid the consequences of an unwanted paternity?

The main carer doesn't have that luxury, they are somehow expected to be able to provide for the child financially themselves.

It is being proposed that abortion should be liberalised. In addition, adoption is and remains an option in most societies including Ireland.

And the court can't force any parent to be actively involved in the child's upbringing so if the dad doesn't want to help out with all that being a parent entails then he doesn't have to.

Pretty hard to force someone to be a good parent when they never wanted to be in the first place. That would seem to suggest that a womans "right to choose" should be tempered by responsibility to ensure that the child is going to have involved, loving parents.

Little CuChulainn · 06-03-2016 05:47PM

volchitsa wrote: »

They're not "mitigated" without even a preliminary legal investigation to whether or not charges should be filed though. That just doesn't make sense, if it's seen as comparable to murder. That just would not happen - if you "possibly murder" someone, you will be tried, and unless you have a very solid justification, you'll go to jail. If someone says they think abortion is equivalent to murder but that women committing this form of murder should never be arrested, then it's really not an oversimplication to ask why not.

Why would they be arrested for something that is not currently a crime? If someone aquires an illegal abortion they should absolutely be arrested, as should the person who performed it, and prosecuted. If someone tries to throw themselves down the stairs to abort their baby then they should be arrested under the mental health act. I don't really see your point here.

volchitsa wrote: »

Same jurisdiction, same legislature, same voters versus any random country in the world. You don't see a difference?

You're grasping at straws there.

You are just ignoring the point. I very much doubt you've been out protesting every decision the last government made that you did not agree with. Does this mean you agreed with them all? No. Protest is not the only way to disagree with something.

volchitsa wrote: »

We were talking about Ireland, I suggest we stick to that for now? There's quite enough to be going on with in Ireland, IMO.

Whatever suits you to ignore. But it's hard to discuss something when you continuously make reference to the entire pro life movement as if they are one person yet exclude everyone who doesn't suit your point by reference to geography. There are people in Ireland who oppose IVF, Stem cell treatment and other similar operations. They just aren't very prevalent.

volchitsa wrote: »

As with your inability to distinguish between your responsibility for what happens in the country whose legislature you vote for and all other countries around, I suspect you can see the point very clearly but simply don't wish to.

The claim that abortion is "tantamount to murder" can be tested by looking at how murder is considered and how abortion is considered.

By that test, no-one I know of in the media or elsewhere in Ireland acts as though they believe abortion really is tantamount to murder.

So I think it's reasonable to disbelieve their claim. As I think it reasonable to disbelieve someone who claims to be a vegan despite tucking into a Big Mac for lunch every day.

That's not a correct analogy. A vegan tucking into lunch would be the equivalent of a pro lifer getting an abortion. The equivalent to what you are talking about is more like a vegan who has dinner with others who eat meat but doesn't call them murderers.

volchitsa wrote: »

At what stage, as a matter of interest?

And do you feel sure enough of your opinion to feel entitled to vote to impose it on others? If so, what grounds do you have for thinking the stage you identify is more correct than, say, the stage I might identify (assuming them to be different)?

About 12 weeks. My opinion is based on my understanding of development of a fetus from what I have read and experienced. I'm open to being convinced otherwise but until that time I see no reason why I would vote any way that would jeopardise what I consider to be a human life.

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you're confusing "ignore" with "dismiss as untrue, judging by pro-life's people's own words and actions" (see vegans and Big Macs above)

No, I just don't see the difference when it comes to this debate.

volchitsa wrote: »

And yet they clearly aren't, since the pro-life movement as a whole has nothing to say about the many inequalities in our society, only about preventing abortion on Irish soil. NIMBY abortions, in other words.

One may be pro-life and also be motivated by social justice, but the pro-life movement itself is not. One can just as easily claim that the pro-choice movement is motivated by social justice. More so, since it tends to be associated with left wing politics, i.e. originating in and deeply influenced by social justice questions.

You're back to the argument about not being able to object to one thing unless you object to other unrelated matters.

volchitsa wrote: »

I thought you said it wasn't about religion?

No I didn't. That was in relation to the will to protect a life, not in relation to the treatment of people who have an abortion.

volchitsa wrote: »

And why would that make them decide that a person was so much stupider than they were that they could identify someone's real feelings better than the person themselves could - without ever having met them!

You attribute a level of arrogance to religious people that I suspect many will find insulting.

And?

volchitsa wrote: »

Well exactly. You would.

So when someone says that someone else must actually suffer harm in the name of child protection, but that the neighbouring IVF clinic can be allowed to destroy as many of those same "children" as required to maximize its profits, then one is entitled to call Bullsh1t on the claim that it's about child protection at all.

You can if you want. It's unlikely to change anyones view.

jeamimus · 06-03-2016 05:52PM

CaraMay wrote: »

You seem to like putting words into people's mouths. It just makes me wonder what value people have on life if your work shift and inconvenience trumps a new human life.

If you don't consider a conceptus or early foetus is a valid human life, then all reasons are acceptable.
The only reason to consider a conceptus or early foetus a valid human life is religious belief.
And thats fair enough for the believers to apply to themselves, but not to the rest of society.

Tasden · 06-03-2016 06:01PM

SeanW wrote: »

So, your argument is that a man has to be pretty much at the very bottom of society to avoid the consequences of an unwanted paternity?

It is being proposed that abortion should be liberalised. In addition, adoption is and remains an option in most societies including Ireland.

Pretty hard to force someone to be a good parent when they never wanted to be in the first place. That would seem to suggest that a womans "right to choose" should be tempered by responsibility to ensure that the child is going to have involved, loving parents.

What?
I gave one example of how men get to walk away from their parental responsibilities. You asked how they do that.

I'm not talking about parents who had the option to abort and chose not to. I'm talking about as it stands now. Where the father walks away and makes no contribution to the child whatsoever. And this is not limited to cases where they "never wanted to be a parent in the first place" or they asked for an abortion. Parents can up and leave at any stage in the child's life and avoid all responsibility if they so wish. I gave one example of how they do so which is what you asked.

ProfessorPlum · 06-03-2016 06:08PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Why would they be arrested for something that is not currently a crime? If someone aquires an illegal abortion they should absolutely be arrested, as should the person who performed it, and prosecuted. If someone tries to throw themselves down the stairs to abort their baby then they should be arrested under the mental health act. I don't really see your point here.

Why would you assume that anyone who would try to bring on a misscarraige like that would automatically be suffering mental health issues? Can't you understand that for some person who is trapped in a situation of a crisis pregnancy, this action might be sane, and logical to them. We're lucky that we don't see much of this kind of thing in this country because very desperate people will usually find a way to get to England or to get pills, but it happens commonly in other countries, and the women are very much sane.

Little CuChulainn · 06-03-2016 06:21PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Why would you assume that anyone who would try to bring on a misscarraige like that would automatically be suffering mental health issues? Can't you understand that for some person who is trapped in a situation of a crisis pregnancy, this action might be sane and logical to them.

It may be sane and logical to them but that doesn't make it so.

ProfessorPlum · 06-03-2016 06:32PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It may be sane and logical to them but that doesn't make it so.

You have your head firmly in the sand. I'm sorry that you are so blinkered that you think what you say is true. Many people end their own pregnancies. Very very few of them would come under the mental health act.

Little CuChulainn · 06-03-2016 06:39PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You have your head firmly in the sand. I'm sorry that you are so blinkered that you think what you say is true. Many people end their own pregnancies. Very very few of them would come under the mental health act.

Are you honestly saying that throwing yourself down the stairs for the purpose of ending a pregnancy is the action of someone sound of mind?

ProfessorPlum · 06-03-2016 06:56PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Are you honestly saying that throwing yourself down the stairs for the purpose of ending a pregnancy is the action of someone sound of mind?

Yes. I'm surprised that this is such a shock to you. You should try and put yourself in other people's shoes from time to time.

Do you think that all the women who ended their own pregnancies in this country before 'going to England' became a viable option were insane? Is that what you're saying?

eviltwin · 06-03-2016 07:00PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Are you honestly saying that throwing yourself down the stairs for the purpose of ending a pregnancy is the action of someone sound of mind?

Hard to believe it but yes. Imagine how desperate a woman has to be to do that. And people think its just a flippant decision:rolleyes:

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

Comments