Proposed abortion Referendum

Purple said:
Most people realise that abortion is horrific but, having weighed that against the needs and wants of the pregnant woman, still come down on the repeal side.
Click to expand...

That's a legitimate position. But acting all horrified and offended because someone shows you that reality is pretty pathetic really.

The posters were put up illegally, they must come down but the more I see of Harris in action, I mean I don't just disagree with him, I can disagree with some people and still respect him. I don't believe him, trust him or respect him. It's a pretty damning indictment of our political system that a non entity like this is a cabinet minister at such a young age.
 
I don't particularly like him but I think he's better than many of the Health Ministers we've had. I just wish they'd call it as it is and admit that they don't really have the power to fix things even if they knew what should be fixed.
 
Purple said:
Most people realise that abortion is horrific but, having weighed that against the needs and wants of the pregnant woman, still come down on the repeal side.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that people do realise the horror of abortion. They do not realise because they have never thought through what an abortion actually involves, or they just wall up the knowledge in their minds and ignore that. That is why there has been such an objection to the posters.

People accept the need for a change, and accept the idea of abortion, under some or all circumstances, but then shut themselves off from the reality.

Its not easy and some people are looking for a free pass, abortion should be available to women who need or want it, but I should not be reminded of the reality of what abortion involves.
 
Most people don't want to know of the realities of abortion. And most people lean towards compromise positions in general. If the bookies are right, and they usually are, then repeal is a dead cert. If so it will have been carried to a large degree based on self-delusion (such as abortion is health care/medicine) and on misrepresentations/lies.

Harris, while never recognising the humanity or the plight of the unborn child, spews alphabet soup - “We remember you, Savita. We remember Miss X. We remember A, B, C and D. We remember Miss Y. We remember Miss P.’’. This is disingenuous but most people will swallow it.

Multiple enquiries to the Savita case pointed to clinical mismanagement of sepsis. The Miss X case was addresses by the Abortion Bill in 2013. A & B lost their cases in the ECHR. In the C case the ECHR ruled that more clarity was needed in what was lawful surrounding abortion in Ireland but stated there was no human right to abortion. Miss D is a sad case of a young girl in state care pregnant with a child with anencephaly. Miss Y wanted an abortion under the 2013 but was deemed to not be suicidal. In the P case a 15 week pregnant woman had sadly died from brain trauma . . doctors then intervened to sustain the pregnancy while trying to determined whether the unborn child had any prospects. The child had no prospect of survival but the medics were painfully slow to come to that determination and this proved stressful to her family.

The totality of these cases does not warrant the introduction of an uber liberal abortion regime. But most people won't be familiar with the details, they'll just have to trust politicians.
 
Last edited:
The lies are coming from the anti-choice anti-repeal side. 6 months is being bandied about on posters all over the place, including upsetting posters being deliberately placed outside maternity hospitals and schools. 12 weeks does not equal 6 months, fact.
Your "sustaining" the pregnancy meant that a woman was treated like a piece of meat/incubator for months to try to ensure a foetus might end up living, while her family grieved and had to fight for her life to be ended with dignity.
 
Firefly said:
Conversely, a fundamental question for me is, when does life begin?
Click to expand...

Having researched this more I am now recognising a difference between "life" and "human life".

I think life begins at conception until life becomes a human life, so abortion or the morning after pill are both in of the same thing, the taking a life and preventing a possible human life but not taking a human life.

So, when does a life become a human life? I had thought it was when the heart started to beat, but this is really just another organ being pieced together and sustained by the host(mother). It reminds me of a jig-saw. You start to put together pieces that fit (around the edges) and go from there. If you were to scrap the jig-saw at this stage you're not really killing the puzzle. However, at some point, the puzzle takes shape and resembles the picture on the box, the "aha" moment. Scrapping the jig-saw at this stage is killing the puzzle. Regarding the transformation of a life to a human life, this occurs, I think, when the unborn can think. Until then it is a life form for sure, but not human life. It has been a difficult process for me to come round to this way of thinking and I have not been swayed by the whole "my body, my choice" argument at all. It's now a tentative YES for me...it's just so difficult.
 
dereko1969 said:
12 weeks does not equal 6 months, fact.
Click to expand...
We can agree on that at least.

I suppose that the 6 months claim is based on the proposed legislation which will allow abortion to 24 weeks on vague medical grounds, like in the UK. The P case was poorly handled and the family treated insensitively. I think you'll find that the woman had died already and that the time frame was weeks rather than months, but should have been days, if not hours.
 
Firefly said:
Regarding the transformation of a life to a human life, this occurs, I think, when the unborn can think. Until then it is a life form for sure, but not human life.
Click to expand...
It's unique human life from conception. While various arguments could be made for ending that life, methinks 'it's not human life' is a bit of a stretch.
 

Why are the posters upsetting?

If the referendum is passed, it is entirely possible for abortion in Ireland to be legalised up to 6 months by a future Dail, so 6 months is entirely relevant to the constitutional question. Where is the lie?
 
It's irrelevant how I feel about emergency contraception, however, my understanding is that such is licensed for use in Ireland on the basis that it can act to prevent conception, rather than as an abortifacient. I believe that, primarily, it delays ovulation.

It's irrelevant because we are not being asked about the morning after pill (which is over the counter), or necessary medical intervention (which is an ethical and legal imperative), or edge cases. We are being asked to remove rights from our constitution with a view to abandoning our two-patient model by legalising wholesale abortion. The Hobson's choice of Repeal is overkill.
 
odyssey06 said:
Why are the posters upsetting?
Click to expand...
I think the main objection is that the posters are in places where young children may seem them and they are unsuitable viewing for them. We protect children from unsuitable films so why should they be exposed to images of late-term foetuses?
 
Last edited:
I see you've judicially edited your initial post. What's wrong with an ultrasound/image of a zygote/embryo/foetus/unborn child?
 
orka said:
I think the main objection is that the posters are in places where young children may seem them and they are unsuitable viewing for them. We protect children from unsuitable films so why should they be exposed to images of late-term foetuses?
Click to expand...

So you have no objection to the posters if they were in locations not associated with children?
They could only be considered as deliberately intended to upset children? Because the original reference (not yours) suggested they were upsetting to adults too.
 
michaelm said:
I see you've judicially edited your initial post.
Click to expand...
I edited (not particularly judicially IMO) to stick to the question of why the images are upsetting rather than introduce a new element to the discussion - otherwise a replier might be tempted to ignore one piece and just reply to the other piece. Happy to discuss provenance elsewhere if you like.
michaelm said:
What's wrong with an ultrasound/image of a zygote/embryo/foetus/unborn child?
Click to expand...
Nothing if that's all it is. It's the bloody/broken zygote/embryo/foetus/unborn child that might be upsetting for children to see.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I don't find the images upsetting - I just don't particularly want to look at them any more than I might like to watch a vasectomy or eye surgery.

There are lots of things in the world that people don't particularly want to see. I'm a meat eater but I don't particularly want to see what goes on inside an abattoir.
 
orka said:
It's the bloody/broken zygote/embryo/foetus/unborn child that might be upsetting for children to see.
Click to expand...
Of course. I don't believe such posters should be used. I haven't seen any, are they being widely used, if at all?
 
michaelm said:
Of course. I don't believe such posters should be used. I haven't seen any, are they being widely used, if at all?
Click to expand...
The Simon Harris one discussed above is an example. You can find it online if you haven't seen it in your area.
 

True, and in the normal course of events such scenes should not be shown - but in some future vegan inspired referendum to ban the eating of meat, I could have no personal grounds for objection if such scenes were shown on posters. And I say that as a carnivore...
 
But again, not really the sort of thing that children should be exposed to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register