Repeal The 8th Amendment (3 Viewers)

[Cornu Ammonis]

Yeah, no point. Arguments don't work for changing opinions. Looked it up though and it looks like the earliest a heartbeat can be detected (via an internal ultrasound) is 6 weeks. Probably would be a good idea to have a laptop by the door in case 'no' campaigners call

There is no heart at 6 weeks. There is a pulse but the heart itself does not form until about 12 weeks.

Also, the 1 in 5 figure is probably lower than 1 in 6 as, as far as I remember, the UK government figures for abortion include people who have travelled to the UK for abortion but obviously the number of births does not include anyone who has stayed in Ireland to have a baby. Therefore the abortion rate would be lower (hopefully will be lower), once they are not importing our women because we can't help them at home.

 

[rettucs]

There is no heart at 6 weeks. There is a pulse but the heart itself does not form until about 12 weeks.

Also, the 1 in 5 figure is probably lower than 1 in 6 as, as far as I remember, the UK government figures for abortion include people who have travelled to the UK for abortion but obviously the number of births does not include anyone who has stayed in Ireland to have a baby. Therefore the abortion rate would be lower (hopefully will be lower), once they are not importing our women because we can't help them at home.

I checked that. They have a separate figure for people who are non-resident who travelled for a termination. So it's not included in the overall UK figure.

My point still stands though. The UK rules are different. Termination is allowed up to 24 weeks, so taking away the numbers having termination beyond 12 weeks (as the law will be here), the figures are going to be more like 1 in 9 or 10.

Either way, the No side are talking horseshit, as usual.

 

[mully]

Hi guys,

Very late to your debate here. I have a question or two.

Let me outline my position first.

I never want a woman to suffer on an operating table, ever. If it came down to a life saving procedure to save her life, I'd of course wnat the doctors to do what was ever necessary in that time and place.

For that reason alone I will be voting yes.

Now my questions:

At what stage does an embryo have rights?

Families who want to adopt but the process is beyond complicated and many have to go to Russian orphanages (where you'd imagine the process is more based around have you got the cash only). Wouldnt this be an option instead of abortion? Shouldnt it be made easier to adopt?


One last thing. The religious right wing nuts who are paraded front and centre on the TV and newspapers have made the debate impossible for people like me. Like one commentor said earlier, I would get crucified on twitter If I raised any of this as a nut job. Hard enough discussing with your mates.


look forward to the response.

 

[Unicron]

Families who want to adopt but the process is beyond complicated and many have to go to Russian orphanages (where you'd imagine the process is more based around have you got the cash only). Wouldnt this be an option instead of abortion? Shouldnt it be made easier to adopt?

.

I'm an adoptee and over the years I have given some thought to this situation WRT abortion and how I feel about it because of my personal circumstances. I would say that it should never be "easy" to adopt because the point of adoption is to place a child with good parents rather than for prospective parents who want a child to get one, the process should be thorough and rigourous. (I'm sure that's a position you agree with because I feel I'm not being unreasonable.)

However ...

It is expensive and as such it has become something of an option saved for the privileged, I don't like that aspect of it and I certainly don't think wealth should come into it when determining suitability to be an adoptive parent. And I don't think it does when it comes to being cleared to adopt, but it is a barrier to actually completing the process.

As it happens there are very few Irish born children available to adopt each year and many of them are adopted by direct family members (uncles and aunts for example) in the event that some tragic event has orphaned the kids and they are in need of some guardian with parental rights. As you said many have to go to Russia (or Mexico/Asia/etc). I have gone through the process of meeting my biological parents and while I was doing that 10 or so years ago the woman from the agency told me that they actually handle very few adoptions each year and much of her work at the time was concerned with reconnecting people who had been put up for adoption with their biological (as an aside, some people, including some adoption advocacy groups, use the term "natural" parents, which I find very offensive) parents.

As to why there are fewer Irish kids that are available for adoption abortion is certainly a factor but we shouldn't discount the fact that the stigma for a single woman to become pregnant, have the kid and then choose to raise it by herself is far far reduced compared to in the past. No more Magdeline laundries etc. and there may be a few auld wans and auld lads who might have opinions on single mums but most people don't really give a shit (and even a lot of those younger people who complain about single mums don't do it on the basis that they had a kid, they whinge about benefits and their taxes) that is *probably* a bigger factor in the reduced availability of adoptable kids.

As to whether a woman who becomes pregnant and doesn't want to be a mother should continue the pregnancy and then put the kid up for adoption. I think that's a big ask to put on someone. My own biological mother was a very young woman, a girl in truth, and she went through a lot having me and I think she was a bit conflicted about my adoption (she was supposed to sign the final papers 6 months after I was placed with my parents and waited till 18 months, which put a bit of stress onto my folks but that's a separate issue). Being pregnant isn't easy, there is a high emotional and physical cost to it, and it seems to me that most mothers are happy to have paid it because they ended up with a kid. But to ask someone to do that in the knowledge that they won't wind up keeping the child (shout out to women who act as surrogates BTW, heroines all); I think that's a really huge burden to put on someone. I have all the respect in the world for women who choose to do it, but it's a huge ask, I'd go so far as to say unfair, for someone to have to do it as standard practice.

Sorry I got more long winded then I tended to there.

TL;DR - Adoption is good, but I don't think it's right to compel a woman to complete a pregnancy and then put the child up for adoption if she would prefer a different course of action.

 

[Unicron]

Sorry your other question. About the rights of the embryo, the current situation is that the embryo under the 8th has a right to life. I believe a recent high/supreme (one of them, a biggy anyway) determined that those are basically the only constitutional rights afforded to one.

I'm in a rush and don't have time to read the story but I think the situation is covered in this artical Supreme Court rules only constitutional right of the unborn is right to life

 

[Lili Marlene]

At what stage does an embryo have rights?

Depends what rights you mean doesn't it?

Abortions clearly end a potential life but considering how many lives currently get thrown under the bus for the sake of capitalism and all it entails we've made it pretty clear that we don't value life or human rights that highly even if we try and fool ourselves into thinking otherwise. At what point are the rights of kids pulling rare earth materials out of the congo with their fingers more important than our computers and phones?

 

[rettucs]

Depends what rights you mean doesn't it?

Abortions clearly end a potential life but considering how many lives currently get thrown under the bus for the sake of capitalism and all it entails we've made it pretty clear that we don't value life or human rights that highly even if we try and fool ourselves into thinking otherwise.

so does contraception (morning after pill). If you wanted to be really finicky you could say that a potential life is ended every time a teenage boy pulls the flute off himself watching porn on his phone. Let's not go there though.

I think it's a moot argument. You're stopping something in its tracks before it gets going. Thats different to killing something in my mind.

But, it's easy to twist the argument and lots of people will have different opinions on what constitutes a life, or what should have rights, etc.

Of course you are right, then main argument in the whole debate is about the fact that they happen anyway, so lets make them safe.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Well it's a moot point in terms of Repealing but Mully already said he's voting Yes.

 

[mully]

Great responses and isnt this how people should talk to each other?

@Unicorn on the adoption point:

Very valid point about the girl/woman having to go whole term. I have a daughter and to see her life interrupted (I know Im being very gentle with my use of words here) by an unwanted pregnancy would be heartbreaking for me. I concur that with the present services available to women who would pick this route, it does seem very hard but I would still like to see inroads being made in this area. Its out dated and cruel even by your own story we can see that. I would argue it doesn't have to be. If we made this process better, wouldn't it be a good thing to save an unwanted pregnancy?

@lil Marlene

I agree with you on the horror of rights of people already alive but I want to focus on the rights of an embryo in this instance. Dont get me started on ideology for god sake. I do remember that case that Unicorn posted, I'll go back and have another read and get the information there.

@scutter

There are indeed some freaks that believe when a young boy masturbates he's committing a sin but like I said, I have no respect for people who dont put their trust in reason and science. The morning after pill happens the next day. While I'd rather people kept their mickeys zipped up in a johnny or in their pants, If it came to it and the morning after pill could be used, I dont think I have an issue with that. Its when embryos start passing 6 weeks. 9 weeks, 12 weeks that I feel very queezy.

Guys, I'm no expert on this and you are really are helping me. Thanks a million.

 

[egg_]

Abortions clearly end a potential life but considering how many lives currently get thrown under the bus for the sake of capitalism and all it entails we've made it pretty clear that we don't value life or human rights that highly even if we try and fool ourselves into thinking otherwise. At what point are the rights of kids pulling rare earth materials out of the congo with their fingers more important than our computers and phones?

This is another variation on "people who say abortion is murder ACTUALLY think murder is grand, so those people are full of shit QED" argument, right?

 

[Unicron]

Great responses and isnt this how people should talk to each other?

@Unicorn on the adoption point:

Very valid point about the girl/woman having to go whole term. I have a daughter and to see her life interrupted (I know Im being very gentle with my use of words here) by an unwanted pregnancy would be heartbreaking for me. I concur that with the present services available to women who would pick this route, it does seem very hard but I would still like to see inroads being made in this area. Its out dated and cruel even by your own story we can see that. I would argue it doesn't have to be. If we made this process better, wouldn't it be a good thing to save an unwanted pregnancy?

I think we can always do better in providing support and services to pregnant people (for me that's the whole point of this referendum) and if part of those improvements led to decisions involving carrying pregnancies to full term and then putting the babies up for adoption then that's perfectly fine, it'd probably lead to happiness for a lot of people. But I think as a society we should only put things in place to better facilitate that option (as part of wider improvements to pregnancy serivces), we should stop short of encouraging or compelling someone who is pregnant to take it, that to me would be a regressive step, almost a Magdeline 2.0 situation. In a way I think the adoption issue is a separate one from what this referendum is about, though there are obviously intertwined aspects.

Ultimately what I would like is for someone to have the maximum number of options available for them so that they can make the choice for themselves that best suits them and to me voting to repeal will facilitate an increase in the options available. We can work at increasing options in other areas at another point.

I'd point out that a situation where more people completed a pregnancy and then put the child up for adoption would also require a massive societal shift in how we view the pregnant. Traditionally in Ireland we either locked up or sent away or hid someone who intended to put a child up for adoption (and these were typically girls and young women, who might not be working), obviously in the scenario I think you'd favour that wouldn't happen, but think about all the other ways that we act towards pregnant women. Women often say that they can be made to feel like they're everyone's property while pregnant, people will touch them and ask very personal questions and otherwise cross boundaries that they wouldn't with anyone else and that is just in a situation where the assumption is that they're happy about the pregnancy and intend to keep the child (this is really tough on women where a FFA is involved); everyone would have to learn to be far more discrete and respectful and restrained if there was a possibility that Mary in the office or whoever, who is heavily pregnant, might come back from maternity leave having had the child and then not kept it herself.

 

[ernesto]

Really? That's mad


+1

For example - the "one in five babies are aborted in the UK" number is actually true ... well, the use of the word "babies" is questionable but there are 250-odd abortions per 1000 live births in the UK according to the WHO, see WHO European health information at your fingertips.

This morning I saw some video containing some doctor speaking for Repeal criticising the 'No' campaign and saying "I don't know where they got the 'one in 5' number". I wanted to post a comment saying 'LOOK IT UP, YOU PRICK! It took me under a minute to find' but I was afraid to, because if I did everyone would attack me for hating women or some shit

I believe more accurately fivurenis more like 17 in 1000.
The 1 in 20 actually covers things like miscarriages and more stuff like that

 

[egg_]

Dude, fucking hell - read the rest of the thread why dontcha?

 

[snakybus]

I'm voting yes to repeal on account of the desperately sad situation that has clearly arisen as a result of the 8th amendment, and also because abortion is clearly already here to stay. But that doesn't take away from the somewhat less but still acknowledged sadness I feel at the prospective loss of life from abortions -- and you can say it's not life if you want, you have a right to that perspective, though I don't share that -- that, granted, are already happening in Ireland. This will be tempered by the knowledge that women will, if Yes wins, have the finally deserved freedom to legally choose what to do in a difficult situation. The hope that that choice will be to not abort most of the time will always be there. But since most women I think are truly pro-babies, pro-kids and yes, pro-life in the truest sense, maybe more so than men, who knows, maybe that's a valid hope that will be borne out. So that's why I think on balance it's the fairest and most decent way to vote.

Another sadness I feel -- and this is just an observation really, way less important and certainly not enough to make me vote No -- is about the apparent lack of ambiguity people feel about all of this on both sides. Maybe it's just the vestiges of my Catholic upbringing or the fact that I'm a country boy but I don't for a moment share most people's sense of moral superiority over those who will vote No, or who are undecided, or who might be thinking about it. I'm not talking about all those women and their loved ones who have every right to be angry, and every right to be militant, even, based on their horrifying experiences in the face of the 8th. I'm referring to what seems to me like a lefty rabble, many of whom are childless men, who block out any opinion that's not their own and beat their chests with righteous indignation. I'd adhere to David Foster Wallace's view that the only coherent position is to be both pro life and pro choice. The fact is that I DO feel ambivalent and torn about this issue. And I don't like that. But I acknowledge that my feelings of ambivalence are quite insignificant in the face of, say, someone dealing with a fatal foetal abnormality, a rape or another crisis pregnancy.

And okay, as someone who's a lefty with almost all lefty friends, perhaps my view here is skewed and I only see the opinion of the rabid left, and of course when the choice is binary, and you veer left, there are those who must to go hard left, because the other side will double down on you otherwise. And that's fair enough. But still, I can't help feeling that, similar to the Marriage Referendum a lot of righteous indignation is often borne from experience but from a desperate sense of insecurity about Ireland, a loathing of those we see as "backward" and a sort of vain desire to be progressive just for the sake of it. And that's not very nice at all.

 

[mully]

I think we can always do better in providing support and services to pregnant people (for me that's the whole point of this referendum) and if part of those improvements led to decisions involving carrying pregnancies to full term and then putting the babies up for adoption then that's perfectly fine, it'd probably lead to happiness for a lot of people. But I think as a society we should only put things in place to better facilitate that option (as part of wider improvements to pregnancy serivces), we should stop short of encouraging or compelling someone who is pregnant to take it, that to me would be a regressive step, almost a Magdeline 2.0 situation. In a way I think the adoption issue is a separate one from what this referendum is about, though there are obviously intertwined aspects.

Ultimately what I would like is for someone to have the maximum number of options available for them so that they can make the choice for themselves that best suits them and to me voting to repeal will facilitate an increase in the options available. We can work at increasing options in other areas at another point.

I'd point out that a situation where more people completed a pregnancy and then put the child up for adoption would also require a massive societal shift in how we view the pregnant. Traditionally in Ireland we either locked up or sent away or hid someone who intended to put a child up for adoption (and these were typically girls and young women, who might not be working), obviously in the scenario I think you'd favour that wouldn't happen, but think about all the other ways that we act towards pregnant women. Women often say that they can be made to feel like they're everyone's property while pregnant, people will touch them and ask very personal questions and otherwise cross boundaries that they wouldn't with anyone else and that is just in a situation where the assumption is that they're happy about the pregnancy and intend to keep the child (this is really tough on women where a FFA is involved); everyone would have to learn to be far more discrete and respectful and restrained if there was a possibility that Mary in the office or whoever, who is heavily pregnant, might come back from maternity leave having had the child and then not kept it herself.

Some excellent points here. Just to note though. I'm not for compelling anyone to do anything just as long as services where available or updated I'd be happier.

It's a real philosophical question. How we care for each other's needs in society.

 

[mully]

Dude, fucking hell - read the rest of the thread why dontcha?

Apologies egg. I hate when other people do that.

 

[Unicron]

Some excellent points here. Just to note though. I'm not for compelling anyone to do anything

Sorry if I implied that you were didn't mean to, I was talking generally. We, men especially, need to tread very carefully about how we approach offering other options other than abortion and whether we're telling someone that they are a better/worse person depending on the decision they ultimately come to for themselves.

 

[Unicron]

. But still, I can't help feeling that, similar to the Marriage Referendum a lot of righteous indignation is often borne from experience but from a desperate sense of insecurity about Ireland, a loathing of those we see as "backward" and a sort of vain desire to be progressive just for the sake of it. And that's not very nice at all.

I think for me the difference between this referendum and the last one was that the no side last time I could not find anything remotely compelling about the arguments they were putting forth and where they were coming from. To me it was all "we are happy to continue treating gay people in a shittier way than we treat straight people." This time however I can understand how someone could be in the pro-life camp, I disagree with them and hate some of the tactics they employ (the shit they pulled at the hospitals this week for example was disgusting) but if someone is of an honest and earnest belief that life starts at conception then I can understand how they'd come to that position.

I do think that position doesn't necessarily preclude them from voting yes in a few weeks but that's another thing.

 

[egg_]

@snakybus you described pretty much exactly how I feel <3

 

[Unicron]

this is a bit of a lads talking shop, would be good to get some women weighing in