The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

david75 wrote: »

There is no cultural or statistical comparison or relevance between Ireland and China.

It’s so totally laughable that you’re using that as an argument.

It is happening in the UK in minority communities.
There is now a blood test that can tell if a woman is having a boy or girl at 9 weeks gestation. So technically this would allow sex select abortions to happen in Ireland.

RobertKK wrote: »

I disagree, abortion has led to an estimated 200 million missing women due to sex selection abortion, so if a person had an issue with women, it would be better to vote to repeal as there would be less born.

... what?

January wrote: »

Can be done from 9 weeks. Takes from 8 to 10 working days to come back. With the waiting period being proposed its leaving a very short window and again prohibitivley expensive so by the time most people save for it when they find out at 6 weeks pregnant...

Still not seeing it.

Parents will be allowed to choose the sex of their baby under the proposed legistation...

eviltwin wrote: »

Maybe the way to end sex selection abortion isn't to ban abortion but work towards changing attitudes towards women and girls in minority cultures........

The liberal view of the justice system.

RobertKK wrote: »

But you put across no argument, you make a statement with nothing to back it up.

I’m not trying to make an argument, I’m pointing out the stupidity of what you said.

applehunter wrote: »

The liberal view of the justice system.

Hardly, there are higher rates of sex selective abortions in cultures where less value is put upon women or a preference for having boys exists country wide. The only way to change that is to change attitudes. Eg those cultures that put less value on women would continue to put less value value on women regardless of the existence of abortion or not.

Ireland tends to not put any special value upon having male or female children so it's virtually irrelevant to the nation tbh.

pitifulgod wrote: »

Hardly, there are higher rates of sex selective abortions in cultures where less value is put upon women or a preference for having boys exists country wide. The only way to change that is to change attitudes. Eg those cultures that put less value on women would continue to put less value value on women regardless of the existence of abortion or not.

Ireland tends to not put any special value upon having male or female children so it's virtually irrelevant to the nation tbh.

Surely the most effective way of changing attitudes is the law of the land.

Simi wrote: »

I disagree with your assessment that an amendment restricting the ability of the Oireachtas to legislate only for specific cases would easily pass. In fact the current proposals are as restrictive as the government could make them without alienating core repeal voters, in my opinion.

On the surface, judging from slogans like Varadkar's 'safe, legal and rare', one could be forgiven for thinking what's proposed is at the conservative end of the abortion spectrum.

However, we're not merely talking about just limited hard or difficult cases here. Unrestricted access before 12 weeks has been well-flagged. And, if you dig down into the recent government-endorsed policy paper, then I think what's proposed goes a lot further than that.

There definitely seems to be an intention to follow the UK two-doctor model for health/mental health grounds after 12 weeks (by far the most commonly used grounds in the UK). To quote the first 3 principles of this 21-principle government document:

Policy 1:
That termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a risk to the health (which would include risk to the life) of a pregnant woman would be provided for in the General Scheme.
Policy 2:
That the General Scheme would make no distinction between a risk to the physical or mental health of a woman.
Policy 3:
That two appropriate (i.e. appropriate to the clinical circumstances) medical practitioners would be required to assess access to termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a risk to the health of a pregnant woman.

Policy 10 then defines what constitutes "appropriate medical practitioners" for certifying an abortion after 12 weeks, i.e. anyone on the medical register:

Policy 10:
That the definition of appropriate medical practitioners in the General Scheme would include all registered medical practitioners on the Medical Council register.

Simi wrote: »

There is no appetite for inserting another abortion clause into the constitution amongst any of the main organisations supporting repeal, and restricting abortion to rape, incest and FFA to appease a small percentage of voters who only support terminations in these circumstances, would completely alienate pro-choice voters like myself.

Well, we'll just have to see if that's the case in this referendum. The political judgment has been that it will pass. Certainly, there's no appetite amongst repeal groups. Will that hold amongst the general public? Is this a correct judgment of public mood? We'll see. A half-way amendment doesn't have to limit itself to FFA, rape and incest either. An explicit hard first trimester limit might mollify many people also, and even appropriate wording for hard cases after that ("serious threat to the physical and mental health of the mother"). Adding the word "serious" and having it hard encoded in the constitution, would limit the almost inevitable later slippage of mere legislation.

A half way proposal, is just that and would tie future governments into a never ending saga of court cases, dail debates and protests. The current proposals have the support of the majority and the government would be wise to stick to them.

Having even a much weakened amendment in there will, of course, result in court cases. The constitution is not the ideal place to have such wording. However, we are, frankly, useless at regulation and its enforcement in this country (unless there's the chance of officials ending up in the high court with all the glare of potential publicity and cost that might entail). It would be better if I could trust the Oireachtas to enact and enforce a middle-of-the-road relatively constrained abortion regime. This is Ireland though (the land of the nod and the wink). Leaving it purely up to the Oireachtas will IMO result almost inevitably in a very liberal regime, sooner rather than later (and almost immediately if the linked government policy document is anything to go by).

Sure, even a watered-down halfway-house constitutional provision will result in unpleasant court cases. However, if the only alternative choice is a liberal abortion setup here, then, in my view, such a constitutional provision is a less worse alternative.

RobertKK wrote: »

Reposting this slightly edited as it was originally a reply, it is about the negative butterfly effect of the missing people in society due to abortion being normalised.

In time I think what some people view as moderate abortion proposals now will in time be viewed as being extreme. There was a time when slavery was not seen as extreme, there is still slavery in the world in 2018 where people are bought and sold. Because it happens it doesn't mean it should be legal.
I don't believe in the trading of life, where one life is seen as inferior, it is a view that ends up permeating society. It has happened in countries where abortion was legalised, abortion rates go up.
The high levels of abortion has also contributed in the western world for the need for higher immigration given not enough people are being born, and this has led to tensions and the rise of the far right.
Back in 2012 the figure was 30% of pregnancies in Europe were aborted or about 2.2 million abortions, a few years later we see Merkel and some others seeing the refugee crisis as a means to fix a demographic problem of not enough young people to fill jobs and pay the taxes. We saw the consequences of this policy and the problem stems from a disregard for life in the womb, which leads to not enough people being born as they are seen as disposable, the replacement of these missing people with immigration from areas of the world which do not share the same culture or heritage. Resentment and now the main opposition party in Germany is a far right party.
Abortion has led to discrimination against girls in some countries, where we see being an unborn female is the reason to be aborted. Today we see the unbalanced populations in some countries like China and India where tens of million of women are missing in society because females are viewed as inferior, with men who will never have a chance to find a woman to share love, because the women were never given the chance of life as they were seen as disposable in the womb.
But this is what we get when people talk about choice, viewing the lives of others as disposable, but not thinking about the consequences down the line.
Abortion brings about a very negative butterfly effect.

]
This one just blows my mind. Abortion should not be legal and women should be forced to continue pregnancies and give birth for economic reasons, and to stop immigrants coming to our country with a different cultural heritage and because women are being aborted in greater numbers??? Really?? You see no connections between any of that?

1) Imagine for a second that starting in 2019 the probirthers completely get their way. Abortion is outlawed, nobody is allowed to travel for abortion and every Irish woman who gets pregnant must henceforth continue and give birth. They are of course allowed to put the child immediately into care at birth, you know that viable alternative that pro lifers advocate. Now, we know that about 4000 women travel to the UK for abortion every year. Thats just the UK. Other Irish women with connections or support in other countries like Germany, Holland etc may well travel there instead. We dont know what those numbers might be. Lets say for the craic there are another 2000. So lets say altogether there are 6000 abortions a year, which will now from 2019 become 6000 extra children born in Ireland. There are currently around 6000 children in total in care in Ireland. If from 2019 even half of these extra children were put in care, within 2 years the number of children in care in Ireland would double, within 4 years it would triple.....can you imagine the pain, the suffering that would cost in society, what the effects would be. Or to speak in your language, can you imagine the economic cost of that to the taxpayer. It would be a lot more than what we apparently "cant afford" to give to immigrants, refugees etc. Dont take my word, have a trawl through the public appropriation accounts and figure it out for yourself. The other 3000 then might stay with their mother as unwanted and possibly unloved children. Which means more people out of the labour force to look after them, which means we need more immigrants?? If the government want more children to be born to satisfy labour market demands I presume they would like skilled taxpayers....unloved, unwanted children with less parental investment and children in care as groups are generally less likely to get an education, be employed etc, massive literature out there on that!

2) When you talk about the rise of the far right, you are talking about people who oppose economic migrants coming here and "taking our jobs" or else people who come here unskilled, claim money from our government that we cant afford while Irish people sit homeless on the streets (the birth of an extra 6000 children a year to people that often cant afford them would have zero impact on homelessness right?). Where do you think these migrants come from? Have you ever looked at the birth rates of the countries they come from? I am not talking about refugees here but the people that the far right feels are here to take advantage of us. The high levels of immigration stem from the fact that governments and parents in these countries simply cannot provide the support, skills and opportunities to all the children that are born every year. In every single country, development only comes as birth rates are reduced, and the children that are born are invested in by parents who want them. In other words when women and their families are given agency over their reproductive choices. This happened in Ireland too.

3) Why do you think that girls are aborted in greater numbers? Could it be because they are seen as having less economic value and being less powerful? If so, is forced pregnancy going to change that?

In a utopian world people, regardless of their economic and social position would be able to continue having unlimited children. It would be lovely if it was like that, I know people that would love bigger families than what they have. But that is a rose coloured vision that nowhere in the world has come to reality. Instead of looking at countries that have abortion and their perceived problems, have a look at the list of countries that currently have similar laws to Ireland. Most of those countries are places where very few people have the means to travel abroad. Are those countries we should be aspiring to? I would ask prolifers, how much of your salary are you personally willing to sacrifice to contribute to the costs of these births if you succeed in forcing them to happen? How much of a pension cut are you ready to take? How much can your child benefit be reduced to? Because that unfortunately is the stark reality of what would happen if you got everything you are campaigning for and your wishes became reality.

If we ever are in a position where we need to increase birth rates again then Im sure the sensible option that governments will take is to provide more supports and incentives to families so they feel comfortable in having the resources (both financial and emotional) to bring a child into the world. Quantity is not everything, quality does count for something too. We are not here just to be alive.

Support for repeal is falling.
A behaviours and attitude poll in the Sunday Times shows support for Repeal is now at 49%.
Support for no restriction up to 12 weeks is at 43%.