woman dies for want of a abortion

[omaghjoe]

I know it's the same language but no amount of mind altering processes or materials can make me understand you on these threads. And weed is legal here.

Arent you in Nevada?
Any questions let me know

[omaghjoe]

1 - In the early stages of a pregnancy, a fetus does not have a brain or central nervous system. It is not sentient. It's "alive" in the same way a blade of grass is alive. Applying the label "baby" to a fetus does not make it a baby and it does not make it sentient. People are entitled to a religious belief that from the moment of conception there is a magical mystical force that comes into being at the time of conception, but they are not entitled to enshrine that belief in law and impose it on everyone else.

2 - Someone needs a kidney to save their life. You're the only potential donor that can help. For your own reasons, you don't want to. Does a doctor have the right to forcibly cut you open against your will and extract your organ? No. Even if another life is at stake, it's your body and your decision.

But of course this is all academic because thousands of Irish women have had abortions by travelling to England. The only people benefiting from the 8th amendment are the airlines and ferry lines.

1. As you say a Human Life (not grass) has begun at conception. IF a brain is your base point then Brain cells are active at week5, for reference thats b4 morning sickness starts thats much earlier than the proposed 12weeks

2. If I grew a third kidney that my body was going to get rid off in a few months id be entirely cool with that

3. (Without trying to trivalise or demonise, for context only) Thousands of Irish people speed every day, should we get rid of speed limits?

But you are trivialising it completely aren't you?

No... Im not, I providing context with a legal (not a moral) analogy.
I would suggest leaving any societal moral scale you or society might have out of it when considering this particular point, it it a purely legal comparison.
I could have equally said should murder be done away with because it will happen anyway.....but then id be demonising

Why would you provide a legal context only? For what purpose?

Huh?
Because the argument is that it should be legal because it happens anyway

[omaghjoe]

Good for you, solid post from someone who's seen some sides to the questions asked.. not easy on anyone, but these things need to looked at case by case before just shouting Prolife!!

Most people are on a scale regarding it MR2. There are only a few at the very extreme ends.
90% of the people on here are men a good percentage of yis are middle aged farts too, a healthy portion are apple munchers... but all that is irrelevant to the points that are being made

[armaghniac]

I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

[Milltown Row2]

So you are no on abortion full stop?

It's like Jehovah's refusing a blood transfusion to save their life or wife's life or even worse, letting their child possible die. It's a stubborn view and wrong..

Abortion is not religious, it's not black and white.. what needs to be discussed is when it happens, what is the timeline and the criteria for it

Nothing has changed.. you personally have a view.. you are not or will ever be (unless you transgender and develop the ability to give birth!!!) able to put yourself into the shoes of a woman that's been raped and pregnant, you also won't be in the position were you can't mentally look after a child, or face up to the fact of bringing up a child alone..

[Syferus]

I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

Polls have the repeal side with a 28% lead. Even with margins of error that's nearly impossible to overhaul in a few months - this is a deeply held conviction and few on the repeal side are like to flip. Complacency appears to be the only concern.

I thought this would be closer than the marriage ref but if anything it's way wider. The repeal side have some silver bullets in the chamber in the form of the Savita case also. The wind is blowing in one direction only.

[RedHand88]

I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

I voted in favour of marriage equality and held strong views on it.

I just cannot vote to repeal the 8th. Call me old fashioned but i cant agree to abortion, and no I'm not religious.

[easytiger95]

I think, no matter how much we all here will discuss it, the female vote - in particular, older rural women, will decide it. One would think that female participation, given the issue, will surpass other referenda.

The key to the older rural womens' vote in the gay marriage referendum was visibility - most of them had or knew of a gay relative or friend, and they were able to relate directly to giving those people a measure of social justice. I think the Oireachtas committee on the 8th, preceded by the Citizens Assembly, was a great platform for letting women tell their stories. Coming close to the referendum, I think we will hear more of these stories, and the more they are heard, the more that older, rural, female vote will relate to the issue.

And I think it is essential that all types of stories are heard - crisis pregnancies are not just about health issues for the mother, or fatal foetal abnormalities. If the referendum passes the battle will move on to the 12 week limit. I think it would be an absolute tragedy if we moved from the constitution inserting itself into female autonomy, to (mostly male) politicians doing it on the basis of electoral cycles.

I have a much tougher time with this vote than I had for the marriage referendum - and that is as it should be. Everyone has their own experience and their own conception (excuse the pun) of what life is, what it means, when it starts. These are huge, consequential issues and we should all be wrestling our consciences on it. However, if I face those difficulties as a 40-something male, who has never, and hopefully never will have to face such a choice, imagine the stress or anxiety a woman, or child, in these situations have to endure. For me, it is, literally, unimaginable, which is why such phrases as "abortion on demand" ring so hollow when you think about it. This is not about allowing a mercantilist choice to be made. This is about the deepest issues of life, health, and finally, autonomy over one's body, and what that means.

The debate should be long and it will be difficult - the issue demands no less. I'll be voting to repeal, but I understand those who will not.

[trueblue1234]

So you are no on abortion full stop?

It's like Jehovah's refusing a blood transfusion to save their life or wife's life or even worse, letting their child possible die. It's a stubborn view and wrong..

Abortion is not religious, it's not black and white.. what needs to be discussed is when it happens, what is the timeline and the criteria for it

Nothing has changed.. you personally have a view.. you are not or will ever be (unless you transgender and develop the ability to give birth!!!) able to put yourself into the shoes of a woman that's been raped and pregnant, you also won't be in the position were you can't mentally look after a child, or face up to the fact of bringing up a child alone..

Abortion is not the only way out of this scenario. No woman should be forced to bring up a child they do not want, both for the good of the child and the mother. But there are other options such as adoption. 

[Esmarelda]

1 - In the early stages of a pregnancy, a fetus does not have a brain or central nervous system. It is not sentient. It's "alive" in the same way a blade of grass is alive. Applying the label "baby" to a fetus does not make it a baby and it does not make it sentient. People are entitled to a religious belief that from the moment of conception there is a magical mystical force that comes into being at the time of conception, but they are not entitled to enshrine that belief in law and impose it on everyone else.

2 - Someone needs a kidney to save their life. You're the only potential donor that can help. For your own reasons, you don't want to. Does a doctor have the right to forcibly cut you open against your will and extract your organ? No. Even if another life is at stake, it's your body and your decision.

But of course this is all academic because thousands of Irish women have had abortions by travelling to England. The only people benefiting from the 8th amendment are the airlines and ferry lines.

1. As you say a Human Life (not grass) has begun at conception. IF a brain is your base point then Brain cells are active at week5, for reference thats b4 morning sickness starts thats much earlier than the proposed 12weeks

2. If I grew a third kidney that my body was going to get rid off in a few months id be entirely cool with that

3. (Without trying to trivalise or demonise, for context only) Thousands of Irish people speed every day, should we get rid of speed limits?

But you are trivialising it completely aren't you?

No... Im not, I providing context with a legal (not a moral) analogy.
I would suggest leaving any societal moral scale you or society might have out of it when considering this particular point, it it a purely legal comparison.
I could have equally said should murder be done away with because it will happen anyway.....but then id be demonising

Why would you provide a legal context only? For what purpose?

Huh?
Because the argument is that it should be legal because it happens anyway

People wouldn't seek another country to drive in without speed limits because they're not allowed to speed here. People don't feel that if they don't drive a car very fast that their life will be ruined and all the mental health issues that go with it. Speed limits don't grow inside your body.

They're both legal issues but, in my opinion, you're trivialising the issue.

[armaghniac]

I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

Polls have the repeal side with a 28% lead. Even with margins of error that's nearly impossible to overhaul in a few months - this is a deeply held conviction and few on the repeal side are like to flip. Complacency appears to be the only concern.

I thought this out be closer than the marriage red but if anything it's way wider. The repeal side have some silver bullets in the chamber in the form of the Savita case also. The wind is blowing in one direction only.

If the issue was simply seriously ill women or some forms of late pregnancy abnormalities then the repeal would pass at a canter, the introduction of unrestricted abortion will complicate this.

[RedHand88]

I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

Polls have the repeal side with a 28% lead. Even with margins of error that's nearly impossible to overhaul in a few months - this is a deeply held conviction and few on the repeal side are like to flip. Complacency appears to be the only concern.

I thought this out be closer than the marriage red but if anything it's way wider. The repeal side have some silver bullets in the chamber in the form of the Savita case also. The wind is blowing in one direction only.

If the issue was simply seriously ill women or some forms of late pregnancy abnormalities then the repeal would pass at a canter, the introduction of unrestricted abortion will complicate this.

Especially since the vast majorities of abortion are carried out for convenience.

[J70]

I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

"Marriage devaluation"??

[gallsman]

I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

"Marriage devaluation"??

Ah come on J70, you're better than that. Nobody else bothered to bite at such a painfully obvious attempt at trolling.

[J70]

I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

"Marriage devaluation"??

Ah come on J70, you're better than that. Nobody else bothered to bite at such a painfully obvious attempt at trolling.

I wasn't going to go down that rabbit hole and derail the thread (I think I did the "devaluation" "debate" with him at the time of that referendum). Just questioning why he left it hanging there in this thread for absolutely no reason. He's usually a sensible enough lad too!

But point taken.