nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

freshpopcorn

During the lead up to the general election I heard some talk about the 8th amendment being repealed and it being an important election issue. Outside of a few candidates and people online. I didn't really find people gave much thought when they were voting. A good few pro life candidates who want to keep the 8th amendment were elected.
If we were to have a referendum on the issue I'm not sure it would be passed. It would depend on what we would be voting on. Would it only be for cases of rape/incest or would it be abortion on demand.
If it was for cases of rape/incest. Would this be hard to prove. So would we essential be voting for abortion on demand.
Going on the marriage referendum a good few constituencies were close enough on voting No. So I think these areas would probably vote No. I could also see another few areas voting No also. I think areas around Dublin would probably vote Yes but it wouldn't be around the 70%. So these areas might pull up the national average.
I know a good few people who'd happily voted Yes last May but they wouldn't support abortion. These would be young/old people and from different areas.
I also know people who'd support abortion
What's After Hours opinion?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

lazygal

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I never really got this argument. It's a mute point, because when someone finds out they are pregnant it's already at the point where someone who is anti-abortion see's it as an unborn child. So their opinion of when it actually becomes a child is really relevant as the pregnancy has already gone way past that point. Just a deflection argument.

It is relevant when discussing the morning after pill. If your view is that life begins at conception, the MAP is the same as having an abortion.

[Deleted User]

volchitsa wrote: »

So when exactly does it become a child? Fertilization?

After implantation as before that it's not actually a pregnancy nor is there the potential for life. It's pretty simple really when methods which prevent pregnancy are no longer effective (the last resort being the MAP) the person is then pregnant and therefore preventing it continuing is ending the life of that child.

PhoenixParker

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

After implantation as before that it's not actually a pregnancy nor is there the potential for life. It's pretty simple really when methods which prevent pregnancy are no longer effective (the last resort being the MAP) the person is then pregnant and therefore preventing it continuing is ending the life of that child.

So are you in favour of paying child benefit for these children from that point?

volchitsa

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I never really got this argument. It's a mute point, because when someone finds out they are pregnant it's already at the point where someone who is anti-abortion see's it as an unborn child. So their opinion of when it actually becomes a child isn't really relevant as the pregnancy has already gone way past that point. Just a deflection argument.

Someone who's anti-abortion isn't going to have an abortion though, are they?

So the answer matters when someone who is anti-abortion thinks his opinion is worth enforcing on people who don't think it's a child at that point. That's why they need to be able to justify their beliefs.

Your answer seems to be because that's what they believe. That's not really good enough any more.

volchitsa

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

After implantation as before that it's not actually a pregnancy nor is there the potential for life. It's pretty simple really when methods which prevent pregnancy are no longer effective (the last resort being the MAP) the person is then pregnant and therefore preventing it continuing is ending the life of that child.

Wait, what? There's no potential for life with a fertilized embryo? You need a dictionary and a science book! I'm sorry but that's just complete nonsense.

[Deleted User]

PhoenixParker wrote: »

So are you in favour of paying child benefit for these children from that point?

Yeah sure why now. Back pay by 9 months after birth though.

volchitsa wrote: »

Wait, what? There's no potential for life with a fertilized embryo? You need a dictionary and a science book! I'm sorry but that's just complete nonsense.

The only nonsense is the constant latching onto tiny aspects of what people say and trying to twist it to suit agendas. Evey little thing someone said appears to have to be justified and if it doesn't fit exactly the answer you or other want then you start questioning the person who made the point.

It's very tiresome going back over every little thing and having to justify it.

Arkady

volchitsa wrote: »

Wait, what? There's no potential for life with a fertilized embryo? You need a dictionary and a science book! I'm sorry but that's just complete nonsense.

According to biology books, when does a human life begin ?

anothernight

Arkady wrote: »

According to biology books, when does a human life begin ?

They don't.

thattequilagirl

For me, the question isn't when does human life begin, but at what point does it become equal in terms of rights to the mother.

To me, equating something that doesn't yet have the capacity to think, live, love or feel pain with a woman is unthinkable.

Arkady

anothernight wrote: »

wired magazine science-cant-say-babys-life-begins - They don't.

That's not a biology textbook

Human life begins at fertilisation

www. biologyreference .com Life-Cycle-Human

anothernight

Arkady wrote: »

That's not a biology textbook

Human life begins at fertilisation

www. biologyreference .com Life-Cycle-Human

Neither is your link.
You didn't read my link, did you? It was a nice little summary for you, with a lovely clear title, which is why I chose that one in particular.

Arkady

anothernight wrote: »

Neither is your link.
You didn't read my link, did you? It was a nice little summary for you, with a lovely clear title, which is why I chose that one in particular.

Your link is a magazine article from Wired, I gave link to a reputable biology reference website. Any biology textbook will say the same.

volchitsa

Arkady wrote: »

According to biology books, when does a human life begin ?

That depends.

(Obviously our school biology textbooks said "at fertilisation" - but remember who was vetting our schoolbooks. So not exactly neutral. :rolleyes: )

Here's a blog by the author of a major Life Science book published by McGraw-Hill, the main US educational publisher, which discusses the question, and why there is no single correct answer.

http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/

Or here's RationalWiki, saying much the same thing: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F

Arkady wrote: »

That's not a biology textbook

Human life begins at fertilisation

www. biologyreference .com Life-Cycle-Human

That's not a biology textbook either, and in any case it doesn't claim to define when there's a new person, only a new life cycle. That's perfectly compatible with the view of life as a cycle, which by definition is circular with an arbitrary beginning and end (like the menstrual cycle or the calendar year).

Like the links I gave above.

anothernight

Arkady wrote: »

Your link is a magazine article from Wired, I gave link to a reputable biology reference website. Any biology textbook will say the same.

Ok, I'll make it easier for you.

You asked "when does a human life begin ? (sic)"

You're now making the connection, using your link-which-is-not-a-textbook, that since the life cycle begins when an egg is fertilised, then that's when human life begins. Now here's the deal: this singular 'human life' might become two, three, four babies. When did each individual life begin? This single cell also has a very large chance of exiting the woman's body without her even realising.

By the way, death is also part of the life cycle. Is a dead person... alive?

And I'll leave my communication with you there, because judging by this and other threads, well... I'd rather not waste my time.

Arkady

volchitsa wrote: »

That depends.

(Obviously our school biology textbooks said "at fertilisation" - but remember who was vetting our schoolbooks. So not exactly neutral. :rolleyes: )

Here's a blog by the author of a major Life Science book published by McGraw-Hill, the main US educational publisher, which discusses the question, and why there is no single correct answer.

Or here's RationalWiki, saying much the same thing:[/url]

That's not a biology textbook either, and in any case it doesn't claim to define when there's a new person, only a new life cycle. That's perfectly compatible with the view of life as a cycle, which by definition is circular with an arbitrary beginning and end (like the menstrual cycle or the calendar year).

Like the links I gave above.

A blog ? and then "rational" wiki ? ( not even wikipedia ! )

Every biological reference I've ever read describes human life, and the human life cycle beginning at fertilisation in biological terms.

volchitsa

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Yeah sure why now. Back pay by 9 months after birth though.

And coroner's inquests for all unexplained miscarriages too, one presumes?
If not, why not?

The only nonsense is the constant latching onto tiny aspects of what people say and trying to twist it to suit agendas. Evey little thing someone said appears to have to be justified and if it doesn't fit exactly the answer you or other want then you start questioning the person who made the point.

It's very tiresome going back over every little thing and having to justify it.

But it's not just a "little thing" it's the very basis of your claim to have a right to have a say about when or whether women you've never met may be entitled to terminate a pregnancy. It's not as though you're going to help look after any resulting children, are you?

volchitsa

Arkady wrote: »

A blog ? and then "rational" wiki ? ( not even wikipedia ! )

Every biological reference I've ever read describes human life, and the human life cycle beginning at fertilisation in biological terms.

A blog by someone who wrote one of the main biology textbooks in the USA, called, tellingly, "Life". That's a lot closer to a genuine textbook than your memories of what you think your schoolbooks said.

The human life cycle is not the same as a human being, as has been pointed out to you.

Arkady

volchitsa wrote: »

A blog by someone who wrote one of the main biology textbooks in the USA, called, tellingly, "Life". That's a lot closer to a genuine textbook than your memories of what you think your schoolbooks said.

The human life cycle is not the same as a human being, as has been pointed out to you.

A blog, again ? but not a textbook or scientific reference. Human life biologically starts at fertilisation, in every actual scientific biological reference I've checked online so far.

[Deleted User]

volchitsa wrote: »

And coroner's inquests for all unexplained miscarriages too, one presumes?
If not, why not?

Why would there there be inquests there is no need to keep adding levels of complication just to have something to post in a vain effort that you think I'll change my opinion. If anything threads like this reinforce my opinions and make them even stronger.

volchitsa wrote: »

But it's not just a "little thing" it's the very basis of your claim to have a right to have a say about when or whether women you've never met may be entitled to terminate a pregnancy. It's not as though you're going to help look after any resulting children, are you?

It is little things, nonsense like "so when do you think life begins" it's semantics. If someone is pregnant life has began at some point before they found out they are pregnant and if they then decide to have an abortion they are ending a life.

volchitsa

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Why would there there be inquests there is no need to keep adding levels of complication just to have something to post in a vain effort that you think I'll change my opinion. If anything threads like this reinforce my opinions and make them even stronger.

It is little things, nonsense like "so when do you think life begins" it's semantics. If someone is pregnant life has began at some point before they found out they are pregnant and if they then decide to have an abortion they are ending a life.

Oh I know you're not going to change your mind.
I'm just pointing out that you contradict your own definitions and complain that they're "little things" when those errors and contradictions are pointed out to you.

If having an abortion is ending a life, then it's not a little thing not to ensure that women aren't having miscarriages that could quite likely be prevented if doctors were given the means to investigate them. The majority of miscarriages are for unknown reasons, and in most cases nobody makes any real effort to find an explanation.

Can you imagine if similar numbers of newborns were dying for unknown reasons? So no, it isn't the same as ending a life, because no legal or medical system in the developed world would ever just put a dead baby down to "just one of those things".

Yet even Ireland with its claim to protect the unborn doesn't really care. It's just a pretence, they're not prepared to put any effort into it (though they'll force vulnerable women to destroy their health, that's not a problem apparently), and that's why your claim to support child benefit from fertilization is a nonsense.

AtomicHorror

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Why would there there be inquests there is no need to keep adding levels of complication just to have something to post in a vain effort that you think I'll change my opinion. If anything threads like this reinforce my opinions and make them even stronger.

Do you really not see what we're doing? You think we're trying to convince you?

The hardline will never move- it'll die naturally with its membership over time. That's okay. We're only interested in your arguments. We want to dismantle them so that nobody else accepts them.

And it's not difficult, by the way. It just requires persistence because you keep repeating the same nonsense in different ways.

wokingvoter

lazygal wrote: »

When should child benefit start? When you get pregnant you're already two weeks pregnant because of your cycle so I think all ovulating women should get two weeks' worth of child benefit payments each month because they could be with child.

But child benefit is to offset the costs of child rearing. It's not a reward for being a mum. Babies in the womb don't cost anything. You know that

rainbow kirby

wokingvoter wrote: »

Babies in the womb don't cost anything. You know that

Maternity clothing and vitamins/supplements aren't free and you need to buy (or otherwise acquire) a lot before they arrive just to be ready for them. It's not exactly cheap.

L.Jenkins

Just a rough estimate provided by the Irish Mirror. Imagine a Single mother trying to support a child on one income, if she's lucky to be working. Now imagine 2 children, one of them being special needs in my Sister in laws case and she doesn't have a job. So the costs for her would be much higher again.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/costs-105000-raise-child-ireland-6081239

RDM_83 again

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Do you think there's a realistic danger of surgery becoming just another form of contraception, anywhere, ever?

Won't be a popular answer on this thread but its factually accurate to say it might not happen in the future (anything might) but abortion has definitely been used as a common method of contraception for large areas in the past, behind the Iron curtain it was the most common method of contraception for a long time.

It annoys me that those that hold their pro-choices principals as such strong part of their identity don't read a bit wider and have more knowledge on the subject. If your views on this define who you are please at least read about it and don't restrict yourself to solely thinking about Ireland.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/02/opinion/birth-control-in-russia.html
There is tons of other sources for this if you don't like the NY Times

wokingvoter

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Maternity clothing and vitamins/supplements aren't free and you need to buy (or otherwise acquire) a lot before they arrive just to be ready for them. It's not exactly cheap.

I suppose I was lucky in that my diet gave me all the supplements I needed, I only ever had one maternity blouse and I wasn't a bit precious about hand me downs or second hand stuff either for me or baby
I mean millions of women all over the world make do with very little, what makes me so delicate?

anothernight

wokingvoter wrote: »

I suppose I was lucky in that my diet gave me all the supplements I needed, I only ever had one maternity blouse and I wasn't a bit precious about hand me downs or second hand stuff either for me or baby
I mean millions of women all over the world make do with very little, what makes me so delicate?

Wait, so all women who don't get hand me downs are "a bit precious"? Try being new in a country without any support from anyone. It's very condescending of you to assume people are "precious" like that. You know, some people aren't lucky like you to have a support network.

colossus-x

I'm absolutely all for abortion. I'd give you two weeks after your ride to get rid of it. After that your stuck with it.

How anyone can go and F*** and not look into the fact your pregnant is beyond me.

You miss your period, that's it. Go and get it done. I'd give you two weeks after your missed period.

I will vote yes, but with stringent caveats.

anothernight

colossus-x wrote: »

How anyone can go and F*** and not look into the fact your pregnant is beyond me.

You miss your period, that's it. Go and get it done. I'd give you two weeks after your missed period.

Some women are irregular enough that it would take a long while to notice that they missed a period, especially when they're younger or when there are some health issues.

colossus-x

anothernight wrote: »

Some women are irregular enough that it would take a long while to notice that they missed a period, especially when they're younger or when there are some health issues.

Sure. Take a pill after after the ride then?