As said above, not sure where the lies are there. Late abortions in the UK where the Mother's mental health is the deciding factor make up the vast majority of such abortions as I understand it. It seems to have become the default reason over there. Can't see why it wouldn't be the same here seeing as that option is to be written into the proposed legislationThe 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.
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.
.
. . . And just to put my cards on the table, I believe no woman should have to carry any child against her will.
I also believe that to destroy an unborn child is horrendous.
If anyone can reconcile those two beliefs, I will have a coherent position on abortion.
The core issue is whether the ‘unborn’ has a right to life and whether that right to life is equal to that of the pregnant woman (unborn what by the way? Embryo? Foetus? Baby? Child? I strongly suspect that the drafters of the 8th couldn’t decide upon the terminology and so fudged it by using the term ‘unborn’. Yet another flaw). I for one do not believe that the right to life of a woman and the ‘unborn’ are equal. Human rights are not all equal and the right to life of a woman is greater than the right to life of the ‘unborn’. I also believe that a woman’s right to health and bodily integrity are greater.
Were many of those illegal posters put up? Any other examples?The Simon Harris one discussed above is an example.
I for one do not believe that the right to life of a woman and the ‘unborn’ are equal. Human rights are not all equal and the right to life of a woman is greater than the right to life of the ‘unborn’. I also believe that a woman’s right to health and bodily integrity are greater.
They were using graphic imagery outside the rotunda and the coombe where women who might be worried about miscarriage or FFA or actually going through it were walking in and out. I think I would find that upsetting if I were in that position, but I have empathy which seems to be in short supply on the no side.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?
How long would you be prepared to make the woman jump through hoops to prove suicidal ideation? This is all part of the control of women's bodies that the NO side are positing. And suggesting women have abortions as a slimming regime is just disgusting.I am conflicted by this bit to be honest. Where the genuine safety for the woman is at stake, such as genuine risk of suicide, I would definitely agree with you. But it's impractical to legislate for this I would imagine. At the lower end couldn't a woman could just get an abortion if it made her look fat, after all isn't that bodily integrity? In such a scenario I think the right to life of the unborn would take priority.
I guess you are referring to the activities of ICBR who seem to be very much a fringe group who are not really helping the No cause. While I think they should refrain, and I'm open to correction, it seems to me that the 'graphic' imagery referred to is just an unborn child, not some abortion imagery.They were using graphic imagery outside the rotunda and the coombe
No, it's abortion imagery alright. The ICBR believes the public has a right to see what an aborted foetus looks like. There are graphic posters (huge ones) used outside the dail too.I'm open to correction, it seems to me that the 'graphic' imagery referred to is just an unborn child, not some abortion imagery.
I don't want women to jump through any hoops. I think if a woman is suicidal then of course her health is at risk and I would think that her safety would take precedence over the unborn.How long would you be prepared to make the woman jump through hoops to prove suicidal ideation?
I'm not saying that any woman would! This would be an extreme case, just like the risk of suicide would be at the other end.And suggesting women have abortions as a slimming regime is just disgusting.
Well a LoveBoats campaigner who canvassed me didn't see the problem, they haven't been rejected by the official LoveBoth campaign either from what I've seen.Well I don't think they should use such posters. Abortion is ugly. In any event, it seems repeal campaigners are protecting public sensibilities by blocking these posters.
I am conflicted by this bit to be honest. Where the genuine safety for the woman is at stake, such as genuine risk of suicide, I would definitely agree with you. But it's impractical to legislate for this I would imagine. At the lower end couldn't a woman could just get an abortion if it made her look fat, after all isn't that bodily integrity? In such a scenario I think the right to life of the unborn would take priority.
I'm not for a second saying any woman would get an abortion due to being perceived as fat. It was a bad example, but the point I am making is that bodily control "could" apply to this case. In my opinion, in such a case, the life of the unborn would be more important. That's why I don't like the "my body, my choice" argument. I would prefer if the argument and reason supporting abortion was on scientific grounds, ie the point that a life becomes a human life.Bodily integrity is the right to autonomy and self determination regarding your body.
In those cases I think the life of the woman is paramount and the woman's life should come first. However, it would be impossible to define a list of risks and illnesses that would be covered. Also, sometimes the diagnosis can be subjective so would we need a team invloved for every case? Much too difficult and time consuming.You only raise suicide as a risk. What about serious life-threatening illnesses such as cancer?
I'm not for a second saying any woman would get an abortion due to being perceived as fat. It was a bad example, but the point I am making is that bodily control "could" apply to this case. In my opinion, in such a case, the life of the unborn would be more important. That's why I don't like the "my body, my choice" argument. I would prefer if the argument and reason supporting abortion was on scientific grounds, ie the point that a life becomes a human life.
In those cases I think the life of the woman is paramount and the woman's life should come first. However, it would be impossible to define a list of risks and illnesses that would be covered. Also, sometimes the diagnosis can be subjective so would we need a team invloved for every case? Much too difficult and time consuming.
I agree with all of that, but allowing abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks can result in abortions where the health and welfare of the woman is not an issue...it could just chosen for any reasonAs it stands, the 8th amendment prevents treatment of a woman whose health is in danger. Her life has to be in danger (no doubt someone will come along to say that I’m wrong about that, but I’m not). You are right, you cannot define every scenario. Therefore, repeal and introducing legislation outlining time limits whereby you can ask for an abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks and then there are limited circumstances thereafter up to 24 weeks make the most sense. The health and welfare of the woman has to be the most important thing.