# Repeal the 8th?



## Adecco (25 Apr 2017)

Excuse my ignorance here - but obviously I've heard this slogan being banded about the last couple of years.
And I've just read an article in Irish times with girls living abroad who are determined that people should be allowed have an abortion for ANY reason.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-...k-from-australia-to-vote-for-repeal-1.3060808
(The first girl in that link claims it was one of the reasons she left Ireland which seems a little OTT to me but anyway)

So is this what would happen if we repeal the 8th? That people can get an abortion for ANY reason? (i.e. they're just not in the mood to have a baby, for example)

Or would there have to be some mitigating circumstances to allow it?


----------



## Firefly (25 Apr 2017)

Gets popcorn..


----------



## Leo (25 Apr 2017)

Ah, the mood to have a baby....

Government haven't come up with any firm proposals an alternative to the 8th amendment, so no one knows yet what choices will be on offer.


----------



## Purple (25 Apr 2017)

Leo said:


> Ah, the mood to have a baby....
> 
> Government haven't come up with any firm proposals an alternative to the 8th amendment, so no one knows yet what choices will be on offer.


Why not abdicate the responsibility to an unelected talking shop full of busybodies, reactionaries, fundamentalists, retirees, academics and people with nothing better to do with their time and ask them to come up with some ideas. We could call if a Citizens Assembly (although that's what a Parliament is so maybe some other name which doesn't give the impression of a democratic mandate would be better)... oh, wait, too late!


----------



## cremeegg (25 Apr 2017)

No matter what provision or none a person thinks there should be regarding abortion, "Repeal the 8th" is surely the shallowest campaign slogan ever. Apart from it horrible American twinge, it suggests repealing a constitutional amendment that was opposed by those most opposed to abortion and those most supportive at the time it was introduced.

Repealing the 8th amendment should only be considered when a new regime has been agreed on, whatever that might be. Either they want abortion covered by the 1861 Offences against the People Act or they just want to rant against something they disapprove of.


----------



## Purple (26 Apr 2017)

cremeegg said:


> No matter what provision or none a person thinks there should be regarding abortion, "Repeal the 8th" is surely the shallowest campaign slogan ever. Apart from it horrible American twinge, it suggests repealing a constitutional amendment that was opposed by those most opposed to abortion and those most supportive at the time it was introduced.
> 
> Repealing the 8th amendment should only be considered when a new regime has been agreed on, whatever that might be. Either they want abortion covered by the 1861 Offences against the People Act or they just want to rant against something they disapprove of.


I think the argument is that it has no place in the Constitution, which should be a document comprising guiding principles, not specific laws. I kind of agree with that idea.  Give that I do find it ironic that some people who support such a view think we should have a Constitutional amendment about water.


----------



## Leo (26 Apr 2017)

Purple said:


> Why not abdicate the responsibility to an unelected talking shop full of busybodies, reactionaries, fundamentalists, retirees, academics and people with nothing better to do with their time and ask them to come up with some ideas. We could call if a Citizens Assembly (although that's what a Parliament is so maybe some other name which doesn't give the impression of a democratic mandate would be better)... oh, wait, too late!




The only problem with that approach is what to do to stall the whole process further if the assembly stalling tactic unexpectedly comes to a conclusion within a lifetime.


----------



## michaelm (26 Apr 2017)

Purple said:


> I think the argument is that it has no place in the Constitution, which should be a document comprising guiding principles, not specific laws. I kind of agree with that idea.  Give that I do find it ironic that some people who support such a view think we should have a Constitutional amendment about water.


I agree with that idea in general too, although I would view the right to life as a guiding principle.  I don't really see any irony as that's not the argument of the repeal side.  They just see the 8th, rightly, as a block to a liberal abortion regime.


----------



## Purple (26 Apr 2017)

I find it ironic that in some cases the same people who think that the Right to Life of the unborn child is not an issue for the Constitution do think that the ownership of a public utility is a constitutional issue.


----------



## Adecco (4 May 2017)

So did anyone watch cutting edge last night? They were on about abortion.

Tommy Tiernan seemed to be the main man according to people on Twitter. Personally I thought he was very poor.

He didn't make any great points - although people really bought into his line 'Abortion won't be compulsory'. I'm not even sure what he was trying to say with that - but a lot of people thought it was cool. Seemed to get a lot of praise for it.

He also didn't like the language the other person on the panel used. Personally I got the impression he was pro-abortion but didn't really want to confront the hard language associated with it.
He's also a bit up himself anyway.

Repealing the 8th certainly seems to be the 'cool' opinion though - and anyone else with a  different opinion is labelled a bible basher.

What really surprised me though was one of the panellists Alison Coleman(?).
She was of the belief that once a child is in the womb and with a heartbeat - then it is a human being. However she then went onto say that the mothers rights trump all this and is therefore pro-abortion.

I can certainly understand if someone if of the belief it is not a child until it out of the womb - and therefore rationalise abortion like that.
But if someone believes that it is a proper human - albeit living inside the womb rather than outside - then its difficult to see that anything other than murder.


----------



## Purple (4 May 2017)

I don't accept that this is a religious issue; I'm an atheist and I have major reservation about abortion. 
I also don't accept that this is a continuation of the agenda which saw us introduce marriage equality; the two issues are very different at every level.


----------



## Adecco (4 May 2017)

Purple said:


> I don't accept that this is a religious issue; I'm an atheist and I have major reservation about abortion.
> I also don't accept that this is a continuation of the agenda which saw us introduce marriage equality; the two issues are very different at every level.



I would agree with all that.


----------



## S.L.F (17 Jun 2017)

I find it really strange that it is against the law to do a cull on garden frogs in an area because garden frogs are an endangered species however people have zero compulsion about ripping apart a baby without the aid of pain relief because they don't think you have any rights until you pass the magic portal.

Given that in the UK babies are frequently allowed to die after failed abortions this also does not hold true.

The only people I think who should have a right to an opinion on this issue are people who have survived an abortion attempt.


----------



## Leo (19 Jun 2017)

Ripping apart? Hardly.

Should those who have suffered fatal foetal abnormalities and been forced onto a boat to England for treatment have a say too?


----------



## S.L.F (19 Jun 2017)

Leo said:


> fatal foetal abnormalities



People use that phrase but I don't think they know what it means.

http://thisismylife.ie/question-2/


----------



## Leo (19 Jun 2017)

S.L.F said:


> People use that phrase but I don't think they know what it means.
> 
> http://thisismylife.ie/question-2/



Even the doctors?

That site though


----------



## S.L.F (19 Jun 2017)

Leo said:


> Even the doctors?
> 
> That site though



Are you saying medicine is now 100% certain on all things??

Can I look forward to being 1,000 years old now since medical science is now perfect?

Do they never make mistakes?

If doctors were so perfect how come there are still babies who survive abortion?

As for the site....pro-life is better than websites suggesting that chopping babies up at 9 months is perfectly acceptable if that is what the mother wants.

See Clinton say killing babies is perfectly fine as long as they has not not passed the magic portal.


----------



## Leo (19 Jun 2017)

I didn't say any such thing, but I would value qualified medical opinion over that of someone who chooses to hide behind European Data protection law to have their history hidden.


----------



## S.L.F (19 Jun 2017)

Leo said:


> I didn't say any such thing, but I would value qualified medical opinion over that of someone who chooses to hide behind European Data protection law to have their history hidden.



Value is exactly the issue here, how much do you value life?

Do you not think life should be given a chance or just snuffed out because someone can't be bothered to look after what they have created?

I keep hearing that we in Ireland are backward regarding abortion and I cannot but help to think what is backward about valuing life?


----------



## Leo (19 Jun 2017)

There are hard-line views on both sides of this debate. Personally, I'd rather not impose my morality on everyone else, or have anyone else's hard-line morality imposed on me. I mean, I think the world is already way over-populated and that is resulting in massive amounts of pain and suffering, mostly in less developed or equitable nations. How much do you value the long term viability of the species, or one individual in a developed country versus hundreds in the third-world? 



S.L.F said:


> Do you not think life should be given a chance or just snuffed out because someone can't be bothered to look after what they have created?



Should someone carrying a foetus with zero chance of survival be forced to continue to carry that and run a high risk of never being able to conceive again? That seems a pretty barbaric practice to me. Why should they be deprived of the choice to have children just to endure some futile exercise? I have family who were in that position, you want to tell the children they've had since they shouldn't have been allowed to exist?


----------



## S.L.F (19 Jun 2017)

Leo said:


> There are hard-line views on both sides of this debate. Personally, I'd rather not impose my morality on everyone else, or have anyone else's hard-line morality imposed on me. I mean, I think the world is already way over-populated and that is resulting in massive amounts of pain and suffering, mostly in less developed or equitable nations. How much do you value the long term viability of the species, or one individual in a developed country versus hundreds in the third-world?



If it is over populated why should we be concerned with things like wars or suicide?

Why is murder a crime?

As for imposing your morality on people, do you think abusing babies/children is wrong?



Leo said:


> Should someone carrying a foetus with zero chance of survival be forced to continue to carry that and run a high risk of never being able to conceive again? That seems a pretty barbaric practice to me. Why should they be deprived of the choice to have children just to endure some futile exercise? I have family who were in that position, you want to tell the children they've had since they shouldn't have been allowed to exist?



The point is that medicine has not yet got to the point where it is 100% correct all the time, so you cannot say "zero chance of survival" because doctors and medics have been wrong before and they will be wrong again.

"you want to tell the children they've had since they shouldn't have been allowed to exist?"

No idea what you are talking about here.


----------



## S.L.F (19 Jun 2017)

Adecco said:


> Excuse my ignorance here - but obviously I've heard this slogan being banded about the last couple of years.
> And I've just read an article in Irish times with girls living abroad who are determined that people should be allowed have an abortion for ANY reason.
> 
> http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-...k-from-australia-to-vote-for-repeal-1.3060808
> ...



The left and feminists generally speaking are determined that women should have complete control of reproduction, while men get left holding the child support demands while not having any automatic rights to see nor bring up their children.

Basically this entire campaign is an attempt by the left to stamp into law more radical feminist dogma into Irish culture.

Anyone with a single iota of common sense will understand that when a woman is expecting it is not a clump of cells she will produce it is a baby.

For anyone to stop that baby from being born it is simple killing.

For those of you who don't know when an abortion is being carried out they never give pain relief to the baby because that would mean acknowledging it is a living being.

That's why they strive so hard to stamp "women's rights" onto this as compared to "I can't be bothered looking after this child" which is more accurate.

Most women who travel do so not because they've been raped or have a child that may or may not die but because they are not bothered to look after their own flesh and blood.


----------



## Leo (19 Jun 2017)

S.L.F said:


> "you want to tell the children they've had since they shouldn't have been allowed to exist?"
> 
> No idea what you are talking about here.



I'm repeating what doctors told my relatives, that in their case carrying a foetus with zero chance of viability to full term would result in a very high likelihood that they would never be able to have children in future. You seem to be of the opinion that they should have taken that chance, thus likely denying their children existence.


----------



## Leo (19 Jun 2017)

S.L.F said:


> For those of you who don't know when an abortion is being carried out they never give pain relief to the baby because that would mean acknowledging it is a living being.



No, it's mostly because it would be a complete waste as the necessary nervous pathways have not been developed to carry the electrical signal to the brain.


----------



## Purple (19 Jun 2017)

S.L.F said:


> The left and feminists generally speaking are determined that women should have complete control of reproduction, while men get left holding the child support demands while not having any automatic rights to see nor bring up their children.


 Some on the left and some feminists are, but not all.

The Swedish proposal in which a man can opt out of fatherhood if he so chooses (they call it male abortion) looks like a good idea and nobody dies! 




S.L.F said:


> Basically this entire campaign is an attempt by the left to stamp into law more radical feminist dogma into Irish culture.


 I think we disagree on who “The Left” are.




S.L.F said:


> Anyone with a single iota of common sense will understand that when a woman is expecting it is not a clump of cells she will produce it is a baby.
> 
> 
> For anyone to stop that baby from being born it is simple killing.


 Broadly speaking, yes.




S.L.F said:


> For those of you who don't know when an abortion is being carried out they never give pain relief to the baby because that would mean acknowledging it is a living being.


 I agree and it is disturbing. This aspect of abortion is not given any coverage here.




S.L.F said:


> That's why they strive so hard to stamp "women's rights" onto this as compared to "I can't be bothered looking after this child" which is more accurate.


 I think that’s a bit glib. It is never a casual decision.




S.L.F said:


> Most women who travel do so not because they've been raped or have a child that may or may not die but because they are not bothered to look after their own flesh and blood.


 Even if that was true there are still the minority who are travelling because they have they've been raped or have a child that may die or will die.


It is a very complex and difficult issue but I agree that it is not just a women’s issue, it is a broader societal issue.


----------



## S.L.F (19 Jun 2017)

Leo said:


> No, it's mostly because it would be a complete waste as the necessary nervous pathways have not been developed to carry the electrical signal to the brain.



Since they are going to be killed anyway why bother eh!

You've not been keeping up with what the left is trying to do here.

Abortion at any stage for whatever reason a woman wants.

No mention of pain relief anywhere there.



Purple said:


> Some on the left and some feminists are, but not all.
> 
> The Swedish proposal in which a man can opt out of fatherhood if he so chooses (they call it male abortion) looks like a good idea and nobody dies!



Swedish proposal not law....it has not gone anywhere but to be discussed.

I have extreme doubts that it will go beyond talking stage.



Purple said:


> I think we disagree on who “The Left” are.



Anyone who think socialism is a good thing, thinks women are oppressed in the West (despite having more privilege than the majority of males), thinks politics is an "old boys club".

Anyone with Marxist tendencies.

Anyone stupid enough to support Hillary Clinton



Purple said:


> I agree and it is disturbing. This aspect of abortion is not given any coverage here.



The reason they won't give it coverage is because if it is discussed people won't think "Clump of cells" they'll think "Human Being" and turn pro-life two minutes later.



Purple said:


> I think that’s a bit glib. It is never a casual decision.



It would be less casual if people were shown an ultra scan of the baby moving of it's own accord before it was torn apart and ripped out of the womb.



Purple said:


> Even if that was true there are still the minority who are travelling because they have they've been raped or have a child that may die or will die.
> 
> It is a very complex and difficult issue but I agree that it is not just a women’s issue, it is a broader societal issue.



In Ireland in 2015 there were 26 abortions carried out in the Irish state to help save the life of the mother and that was under the 8th.

My own feeling is we should not just butcher babies because someone isn't bothered to look after a child.

People need to see all aspects of what abortion is including finding out what sort of mental health issues exist after women have an abortion in later life.


----------



## S.L.F (19 Jun 2017)

Leo said:


> I'm repeating what doctors told my relatives, that in their case carrying a foetus with zero chance of
> viability to full term would result in a very high likelihood that they would never be able to have children in future.



If you can say to me 100% that doctors are completely infallible and never make mistakes then we can discuss what you have said as being 100% fact.

But you can't can you!



Leo said:


> You seem to be of the opinion that they should have taken that chance, thus likely denying their children existence.



Ah now I understand what you mean.

If we are going to go down the likely route the we should also discuss the possibility of the expectant mother being likely to commit suicide or having mental health issues down the road.

You don't know what would have happened if she had carried it to full term, neither did the doctors.

But when the baby was removed from the womb it was killed.

That's just fact.


----------



## Leo (20 Jun 2017)

S.L.F said:


> If you can say to me 100% that doctors are completely infallible and never make mistakes then we can discuss what you have said as being 100% fact.
> 
> But you can't can you!



If you want 100% facts, then we need to eliminate humans from the argument entirely.




S.L.F said:


> Ah now I understand what you mean.
> 
> If we are going to go down the likely route the we should also discuss the possibility of the expectant mother being likely to commit suicide or having mental health issues down the road.



So you clearly don't get what I mean. And that's also a fact, unlike your assertion that a fetus at any stage has developed the necessary biology to transmit pain signals, let alone interpret them as something to cause discomfort. But hey, why let the facts get in the way.


----------



## cremeegg (20 Jun 2017)

S.L.F said:


> Abortion at any stage for whatever reason a woman wants.



That is a perfectly reasonable idea. No woman should have to carry a child if she does not want to.


----------



## cremeegg (20 Jun 2017)

S.L.F said:


> ripping apart a baby without the aid of pain relief



That is a simple and true description of what abortion involves.


----------



## Purple (20 Jun 2017)

cremeegg said:


> That is a perfectly reasonable idea. No woman should have to carry a child if she does not want to.


Even if she is almost full term and the baby is capable of live outside the womb?
You are in a very small minority if that is your view.

What about the father of the child, should he have no say?

In most countries a woman does not have to become a mother if she does not wish to and to force her to do so is considered barbaric and yet a man has no say as to whether he becomes a father, whether he wants to or not. That is unjust.


----------



## Purple (20 Jun 2017)

S.L.F said:


> Anyone stupid enough to support Hillary Clinton


I would have voted for her, her stance on abortion not withstanding, as the alternative was worse.


----------



## Betsy Og (20 Jun 2017)

FWIW, and with no major interest in the topic, I doubt any proposal allowing for abortion after the initial weeks (cluster of cells time) would get passed in Ireland. Possible exceptions for fatal foetal abnormality. Not convinced that rape, incest & alleged suicidal risk are good reasons for later term abortions. Its not that I wouldnt have huge sympathy for the expectant mother, but I also could not ignore the child and its right to life. The child, however unfortunate its conception, does not deserve capital punishment. The bit I struggle with is that "dividing line", where along the pathway from conception to birth is it ok to call a halt, but I suspect I'm much earlier on the timeline than the "my body" brigade.


----------



## cremeegg (20 Jun 2017)

Purple said:


> Even if she is almost full term and the baby is capable of live outside the womb?
> You are in a very small minority if that is your view.



I dont think you understand my view. Which is is that abortion is the destruction of human life, and that no woman should have to carry a child against her will.



Purple said:


> What about the father of the child, should he have no say?



I will have to think about this. However it does not strike me as a fundamental question.


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2017)

cremeegg said:


> I dont think you understand my view. Which is is that abortion is the destruction of human life, and that no woman should have to carry a child against her will.
> 
> 
> 
> I will have to think about this. However it does not strike me as a fundamental question.


So you are married and have a child and your wife is expecting your second baby. It's due in two weeks and you are looking forward to it.
Your wife tells you over dinner that she has changed her mind and is going to have an abortion tomorrow. 
Do you think that a) such a late term abortion should be allowed and b) you should have absolutely no say in the matter.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Jun 2017)

You haven't actually responded to my view. Thats ok I'm just pointing that out.

As for the scenario you paint, well actually it is not too far removed from my own actual experience. My wife comes from a culture with very different perspectives on abortion than Ireland's. When new were expecting our first child I was shocked to discover that my wife considered it natural to have a scan for any issues the baby might have and that if there was an indication of for example Downs Syndrome she would consider an abortion the obvious next step.



Purple said:


> Do you think that a) such a late term abortion should be allowed and b) you should have absolutely no say in the matter.



To at least partially answer your question, based on my experience. I didn't even occur to me that the state should have any role in any decision we might make. There was no question of "allowed", who would have the right to "allow" or "disallow"

As to the question of whether the father should have a say. Well in the context of the relationship I certainly think that the father should have a full say equal to that of the mother. If he didn't that would surely be the end of the relationship. 

However if a woman became pregnant as a result of a casual sexual encounter, or the relationship had ended before the pregnancy was known, then I don't see that the father has much claim to a say.


----------



## Firefly (21 Jun 2017)

The abortion debate as we all know gets quite heated. One thing I would like to add, that's not really considered very often, is the possibility of adoption. Luckily we've been able to conceive but there are countless couples up & down the country who can't and who could offer the babies of an unwanted pregnancy a loving home.


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2017)

cremeegg said:


> You haven't actually responded to my view. Thats ok I'm just pointing that out.


I agree that it is the destruction of a human life. I don't see how it can be OK to abort a baby but a few days later, after the child is born, is it not OK to kill it. 

It is not just the mothers decision as it is not just the mother involved in the equation because;
a) The father is involved as even in the scenario of a pregnancy as a result of casual sex the father will have a legal obligation to the child until it is an adult.
b) The baby is involved. Under Irish law we recognise the right to life of that child. I don't think we should dismiss that.


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2017)

Firefly said:


> One thing I would like to add, that's not really considered very often, is the possibility of adoption.


I agree. It need not be a life long commitment for the mother.


----------



## S.L.F (23 Jun 2017)

cremeegg said:


> That is a perfectly reasonable idea. No woman should have to carry a child if she does not want to.



Must be wonderful to control the reproductive process for both men and women.



Purple said:


> In most countries a woman does not have to become a mother if she does not wish to and to force her to do so is considered barbaric and yet a man has no say as to whether he becomes a father, whether he wants to or not. That is unjust.



I cannot see anyone changing this.



Purple said:


> I would have voted for her, her stance on abortion not withstanding, as the alternative was worse.



Trump won because the left made him attractive.

She represented more of the same stuff which has been pushed.

He represented a possible change.

If you want to know why he won here have a watch of Jonathon Pye explaining why he won



cremeegg said:


> I dont think you understand my view. Which is is that abortion is the destruction of human life, and that no woman should have to carry a child against her will.



You can't have both views.

Either a child can be torn apart at  a whim or it can't.



cremeegg said:


> You haven't actually responded to my view. Thats ok I'm just pointing that out.
> 
> As for the scenario you paint, well actually it is not too far removed from my own actual experience. My wife comes from a culture with very different perspectives on abortion than Ireland's. When new were expecting our first child I was shocked to discover that my wife considered it natural to have a scan for any issues the baby might have and that if there was an indication of for example Downs Syndrome she would consider an abortion the obvious next step.



Cull the weak from the herd eh!

That's what a certain group did in the 1940's.



cremeegg said:


> To at least partially answer your question, based on my experience. I didn't even occur to me that the state should have any role in any decision we might make. There was no question of "allowed", who would have the right to "allow" or "disallow"



Surely murder is wrong?



cremeegg said:


> As to the question of whether the father should have a say. Well in the context of the relationship I certainly think that the father should have a full say equal to that of the mother. If he didn't that would surely be the end of the relationship.



Enforceable views or just worthless opinions with the hope she might not tear his baby apart because she is not bothered to have a baby?



cremeegg said:


> However if a woman became pregnant as a result of a casual sexual encounter, or the relationship had ended before the pregnancy was known, then I don't see that the father has much claim to a say.



Why not?

If he is liable for child support if she chooses to have the baby why should he not get a say whether he is to be made a father against his will?



Purple said:


> I agree that it is the destruction of a human life. I don't see how it can be OK to abort a baby but a few days later, after the child is born, is it not OK to kill it.



Or even as the question why do people think certain abortion is perfectly okay at certain stages of abortion but not others.

Either what is in there is human or it is not.



Purple said:


> b) The baby is involved. Under Irish law we recognise the right to life of that child. I don't think we should dismiss that.



The 8th recognises that if the mother's life is in danger and killing the child will help then it is legal to terminate the life of the child.

26-28 babies were killed because of that reason in 2015 or 2016 (can't remember which).


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Jun 2017)

Purple said:


> I agree that it is the destruction of a human life. I don't see how it can be OK to abort a baby but a few days later, after the child is born, is it not OK to kill it.


I think a lot of confusion arises in this debate between what is moral and when do the responsibilities of the State extend to protection of the unborn.  For example the cut off point in the UK is  24 weeks.  Now it seems to me that it would be quite inconsistent for a woman to think it is morally ok before 24 weeks but after that it is not morally ok.  However, the idea of a cut off point for when the unborn is entitled to full protection of the State is not inconsistent albeit it must inevitably be rather arbitrary.

One thing that does seem strange to me is that once one has decided on when termination is a crime that the threat of suicide can decriminalise it. I understand the threat of suicide as a mitigating defence for any crime "m'lord I had to steal those cigs or commit suicide". But I am not aware of any crime which is negated by the threat of suicide.


----------



## S.L.F (23 Jun 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> For example the cut off point in the UK is  24 weeks.



Actually legally late term abortions can be carried out if the doctors agree.

I believe that in England there have been plenty of calls to look at cases where failed abortions have been born alive and instead of seeking medical services they are either dispatched or left in a cupboard till they stop crying.

Such a practise you'd think would be outlawed anywhere people consider themselves to a modern caring society.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Jun 2017)

S.L.F said:


> Actually legally late term abortions can be carried out if the doctors agree.
> 
> I believe that in England there have been plenty of calls to look at cases where failed abortions have been born alive and instead of seeking medical services they are either dispatched or left in a cupboard till they stop crying.
> 
> Such a practise you'd think would be outlawed anywhere people consider themselves to a modern caring society.


The England approach is a hypocritical nonsense.  Apparently if two doctors agree that termination is safer for the woman than carrying to full term then it is justified.  Many doctors believe that termination (at least up to an advanced stage) is *always *safer than risking full term, so that amounts to abortion on demand.

But I was really addressing _Purple's _plausible point.  Clearly if a woman has no moral qualms in killing her unborn child because of the likelihood of severe handicap she should have absolutely no moral qualms in killing her new born child on finding it actually has that severe handicap.  But that's not the point.  Most people agree that once born all persons are entitled to the protection of the State (whether the mother is threatening suicide or not).  That does not mean that it is inconsistent to suggest that at least in the early stages the unborn should not be entitled to the same level of protection.


----------



## michaelm (23 Jun 2017)

Firefly said:


> One thing I would like to add, that's not really considered very often, is the possibility of adoption.


Adoption is a positive option which should be hugely promoted; it could render unnecessary, expensive and protracted inter-country adoptions, and offer an alternative for some to multiple IVF cycles.

The state should provide much more support for those with crisis pregnancies.  Perinatal hospice and palliative care should be provided when the unborn child has a life-limiting condition.  Any right to life should not be predicated on how conception transpired; punish the rapists not the innocents.

Abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation.  Our legislation in that regard is a political nonsense (X set no legal precedent and no onus exists on governments to enact laws based on Supreme Court cases).  Hard cases make bad law.

Ireland's two-patient model has served mothers and babies well.  Necessary medical treatment is never denied to expectant women, even where that will result in the loss of the unborn child's life.  The 8th underpins all this and acts as a bulwark to a creeping culture of death.  I hope we recognise the humanity of the unborn child and not sacrifice the 8th in the name of liberal modernity.


----------



## S.L.F (23 Jun 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The England approach is a hypocritical nonsense.  Apparently if two doctors agree that termination is safer for the woman than carrying to full term then it is justified.  Many doctors believe that termination (at least up to an advanced stage) is *always *safer than risking full term, so that amounts to abortion on demand.
> 
> But I was really addressing _Purple's _plausible point.  Clearly if a woman has no moral qualms in killing her unborn child because of the likelihood of severe handicap she should have absolutely no moral qualms in killing her new born child on finding it actually has that severe handicap.  But that's not the point.  Most people agree that once born all persons are entitled to the protection of the State (whether the mother is threatening suicide or not).  That does not mean that it is inconsistent to suggest that at least in the early stages the unborn should not be entitled to the same level of protection.



I know

I was just pointing out that late term abortions are carried out in the UK way past 24 weeks


----------



## cremeegg (24 Jun 2017)

cremeegg said:


> ... abortion is the destruction of human life, and no woman should have to carry a child against her will.






S.L.F said:


> You can't have both views.



I certainly can. In fact I do.

If you are trying to say that either view taken to the extreme would preclude the other. Then certainly that is true. In my opinion the abortion debate has too much extremism.

It is easy to become extreme and feel all virtuous in defence of the unborn, or to take an extreme position in support of a woman's bodily integrity and feel equally virtuous.

The reality is that anybody who does either to the exclusion of the other is at best being dishonest with themselves, or at worst has no concern for either the unborn or the woman.


----------



## S.L.F (24 Jun 2017)

cremeegg said:


> I certainly can. In fact I do.
> 
> If you are trying to say that either view taken to the extreme would preclude the other. Then certainly that is true. In my opinion the abortion debate has too much extremism.
> 
> ...



You are saying that murder is perfectly fine if a woman makes a choice to kill her baby.

If you are going to make a moral stand then it should be based on morals.

Either murder is wrong or it isn't.

That's why I don't think you can have both views.

[Edit] 



> woman's bodily integrity



The problem with this line is that when she kills the child it is not her body she is killing.


----------



## cremeegg (24 Jun 2017)

Stop telling me what I am saying or what I can think.

You seem to think that abortion is murder. Fair enough. 

I am suggesting that this view looks only at one side of the issue. Your position would be more rounded if you looked at the other side as well, no matter what you view then was.


----------



## S.L.F (24 Jun 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Stop telling me what I am saying or what I can think.
> 
> You seem to think that abortion is murder. Fair enough.
> 
> I am suggesting that this view looks only at one side of the issue. Your position would be more rounded if you looked at the other side as well, no matter what you view then was.



I'm merely going by your posts, 

Do women who are pregnant think that the body they carry is part of their own or that it is just a parasite leeching off them?

When a child passes from a woman, is that the time they by magic get the right to life?

That's the problem with the whole issue of abortion, they forget there are two bodies to consider not one.

If you decide to kill the child then yes it is murder in my eyes just like if you kill the child after birth.


----------

