Irish vote of gay marriage

[Eric Mc]

Kawasicki said:

I don't intend to impose my views of abortion on others. Religious oppression and restricted thought is not something I noticed growing up in Ireland, though I have no doubt been influenced in some way by Irish cultural norms.

Depends on what age you are and what part of Ireland you grew up in. As is obvious with results of recent referenda in Ireland, attitudes in that country have been changing over the past 30 plus years.

In 1984 you could still get tens of thousands of people turning up in rural areas to watch allegedly moving religious statues. I doubt that this would happen on the same scale now.

(Note - Father Ted was not just a comedy show).

[ZedLeg]

Kawasicki said:

Cold said:

Kawasicki said:

The baby is not the woman's body.

There is no baby.

In that case an abortion is not required

You don't abort babies, you abort foetuses. They are very much a part of the body until birth, to try and remove one incorrectly could cause fatal damage. Which is why it's important to have safe and regulated services to provide for people who need them.

[anonymous-user]

Kawasicki said:

In that case an abortion is not required

No point trying to have a discussion with you if you are going to spout bks like that.

[MC Bodge]

Kawasicki said:

I don't intend to impose my views of abortion on others. Religious oppression and restricted thought is not something I noticed growing up in Ireland, though I have no doubt been influenced in some way by Irish cultural norms.

I'm not sure how long you have lived abroad, but expats often see their home country as it was when they were growing up in decades past, rather than what it has become in the present day.

The Irish went from having large families to having 1 or 2 children within a generation or so -I suspect that they no longer follow the teachings of the RC church that closely.

[Cold]

In the UK the majority of terminations are carried out before 10 weeks (79%). Fewer than 1% are conducted after 12 weeks.
The 24 week rule is in place because many abnormalities that may not be compatible with life are not detectable until 20 weeks (at the 20w scan).
By the time further tests are done via amniotic fluid etc and a decision has been made a few weeks may well have passed.

[Eric Mc]

MC Bodge said:

I'm not sure how long you have lived abroad, but expats often see their home country as it was when they were growing up in decades past, rather than what it has become in the present day.

The Irish went from having large families to having 1 or 2 children within a generation or so -I suspect that they no longer follow the teachings of the RC church that closely.

I left Ireland in 1986. I grew up and worked for many years in Dublin. I also worked in the North West (Sligo) and the midlands (Portarlington) so saw at first hand the wide gulf between the power of the church in rural areas compared to Dublin.

The social changes in Ireland mirror the same changes that have happened in the rest of the developed world. However, the pace of change in Ireland was a lot slower - mainly because Ireland did not suffer the huge traumas that other countries went through during World War 2 - and the subsequent loss of the power of authority that transformed societies elsewhere in the 1950s and 60s. Ireland in the 50s was still terribly repressed.

Matters improved a little in the 1960s, especially in Dublin, but the Catholic Church was still dictating to government what types of laws to implement and uphold. The pace of change continued at a snail's pace through the 70s and 80s. It was only in the 1990s that the population began to exercise independent thought and started asking for and getting law changes that the Catholic Church opposed.

Examples of some important laws that were introduced DESPITE the opposition of the Catholic Church -

1980

1978 the Health (Family Planning) Bill was introduced making the sale of contraceptives legal in Ireland for the first time since 1935. But only in very restricted circumstances i.e through a medical prescription provided by a sympathetic doctor (if you could find one).

1985
The Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Act, 1985

This removed the "prescription" aspect of the above act - although contraceptives could still not be sold openly.

1993
The ban on homosexual acts between consenting adults was removed. For the purpose of this law change, the term "adult" was set at people over the age of 16. In the UK it is still "over 18".

1995
Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act
This removed the legal ban on divorces in Ireland.

2010
Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010
Recognised same sex relationships in law.

2015
Same sex marriage legislation introduced

2018
Referendum to amend Irish Constitution to allow abortion

So you can see there has been a gradual move towards a more progressive society in Ireland going back almost four decades. In the UK, it is sometimes claimed that the scandals linked to the Catholic Church in Ireland is the key driver for these changes. I actually disagree. The changes have been happening for a long time. What the scandals have done is act as an accelerant in recent years.

[Robertj21a]

Kawasicki said:

The baby is not the woman's body.

Well take the woman's body away and see how well the 'baby' gets on

[Kawasicki]

ZedLeg said:

Kawasicki said:

Cold said:

Kawasicki said:

The baby is not the woman's body.

There is no baby.

In that case an abortion is not required

You don't abort babies, you abort foetuses. They are very much a part of the body until birth, to try and remove one incorrectly could cause fatal damage. Which is why it's important to have safe and regulated services to provide for people who need them.

Semantics.

So this whole debate comes down to whether you think what exists in the womb at some stage before birth has the right to life.

I think it does.

Is that so radical or regressive?

[Kawasicki]

Robertj21a said:

Kawasicki said:

The baby is not the woman's body.

Well take the woman's body away and see how well the 'baby' gets on

Take the care away from a toddler and they will die too. The baby or foetus is not the woman, they are genetically different.

[Eric Mc]

Kawasicki - you've lost the argument. These laws are in place here and will shortly be in Ireland. There is no groundswell of opinion in any civillised countries for these types of laws to be rescinded.

The Irish have fought 40 years to get the law changed . It's finally happended despite the efforts of those who want to impose their (now minority) views on others.

I think it is a great day for Ireland.

[Derek Smith]

Kawasicki said:

Semantics.

So this whole debate comes down to whether you think what exists in the womb at some stage before birth has the right to life.

I think it does.

Is that so radical or regressive?

You use the word 'rights' as if it is some sort of magical get out of gaol free card. Rights are only what the law prescribes. I'm not sure what you mean by right to life. It is not clear from any of your posts.

In law a foetus has the 'right to life' when it is capable of being born alive, but even this is conditional. A line has to be drawn somewhere and in a democratic society this is indicated by laws.

Our system means that, brexit apart, MPs and judges decide what is the law regardless, in fact, of the majority view. For instance, it would appear that hanging has overwhelming support, but MPs refuse to enact the law.

You have, according to a previous post, drawn the line somewhere between conception, when it is OK to stop the foetus forming, and a time which you refuse to nominate. However, not to bother as the law has stipulated a time.

The vast majority of abortions are completed within 12 weeks of conception. The upper limit is twice this and there is an argument to make it lower.

So where would you draw your line? It's a simple enough question but one which you have failed to address.

I may or may not agree with the time limit of 24 weeks. There are persuasive arguments for both sides. Whatever the time limit should be must be arrived at taking all the relevant circumstances into account, including the views of women. I agree it is not a case of solely their say, but there is more than a tinge of sexism in that the laws on the matter were passed, in the main, by middle aged men.

You are fully entitled to your opinion. However, from your posts it would seem that you view a foetus as being people from the moment of conception. You are also happy to ignore these rights at an early stage. As I said, I'm not sure what your point of view is other than it is not nice to abort a foetus, something which a number of posters agree with. There's a lot in life which is not nice but is best to do.

So give up an upper limit. It does not have to be in weeks of course. Give it a go and your arguments will have some form of basis one can discuss.

[Halb]

Kawasicki said:

Cold said:

Kawasicki said:

The baby is not the woman's body.

There is no baby.

In that case an abortion is not required

zen

[anonymous-user]

Kawasicki said:

Semantics.

So this whole debate comes down to whether you think what exists in the womb at some stage before birth has the right to life.

I think it does.

Is that so radical or regressive?

Regressive and wrong.

[Halb]

Kawasicki said:

It's already too late in the UK, Ireland will follow.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/98457...

I read it, there seems to be disagreement in numbers.
I also had to look up what a cleft palate is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleft_lip_and_cleft_...
That seems an important thing for a parent, it's not a flippant reason

[Eric Mc]

If Kawasicki is so upset about abortion and hates the ideas that others are free to chose, maybe he should look to either change the law in the UK or emigrate to a country where abortion is banned and women have no choice but to go ahead with bearing a child - no matter what the circumstances.

[Kawasicki]

Derek Smith said:

Kawasicki said:

Semantics.

So this whole debate comes down to whether you think what exists in the womb at some stage before birth has the right to life.

I think it does.

Is that so radical or regressive?

You use the word 'rights' as if it is some sort of magical get out of gaol free card. Rights are only what the law prescribes. I'm not sure what you mean by right to life. It is not clear from any of your posts.

In law a foetus has the 'right to life' when it is capable of being born alive, but even this is conditional. A line has to be drawn somewhere and in a democratic society this is indicated by laws.

Our system means that, brexit apart, MPs and judges decide what is the law regardless, in fact, of the majority view. For instance, it would appear that hanging has overwhelming support, but MPs refuse to enact the law.

You have, according to a previous post, drawn the line somewhere between conception, when it is OK to stop the foetus forming, and a time which you refuse to nominate. However, not to bother as the law has stipulated a time.

The vast majority of abortions are completed within 12 weeks of conception. The upper limit is twice this and there is an argument to make it lower.

So where would you draw your line? It's a simple enough question but one which you have failed to address.

I may or may not agree with the time limit of 24 weeks. There are persuasive arguments for both sides. Whatever the time limit should be must be arrived at taking all the relevant circumstances into account, including the views of women. I agree it is not a case of solely their say, but there is more than a tinge of sexism in that the laws on the matter were passed, in the main, by middle aged men.

You are fully entitled to your opinion. However, from your posts it would seem that you view a foetus as being people from the moment of conception. You are also happy to ignore these rights at an early stage. As I said, I'm not sure what your point of view is other than it is not nice to abort a foetus, something which a number of posters agree with. There's a lot in life which is not nice but is best to do.

So give up an upper limit. It does not have to be in weeks of course. Give it a go and your arguments will have some form of basis one can discuss.

12 weeks. A fertilized embryo is not a person, for some odd reason you seem to think I’m religious!

At 18 weeks babies can now survive. Aborting at 24 weeks is extremely disturbing.

Edited by Kawasicki on Monday 28th May 18:19

[Kawasicki]

Eric Mc said:

If Kawasicki is so upset about abortion and hates the ideas that others are free to chose, maybe he should look to either change the law in the UK or emigrate to a country where abortion is banned and women have no choice but to go ahead with bearing a child - no matter what the circumstances.

Maybe I should. Does my opinion upset you? Your opinion doesn’t upset me. Since we are being daft. If the UK were to restrict abortion to less than 22 weeks would you move to another country that allowed terminations hours/minutes/seconds before birth?

[gregs656]

Kawasicki said:

I don't see it as a black or white issue. I am ok with the morning after pill, I am not ok with some late term abortions (cleft palate example). I also think that the vote to allowed unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks is the thin end of a very big wedge.

I don't believe in God, so I don't think he/she does anything.

Do you not recognise your own opinion is the thin edge of another very big wedge?

Your wedge has some extremely undesirable outcomes too - many of which have already been mentioned.

I think we have a reasonable balance here.

[Derek Smith]

Kawasicki said:

12 weeks. A fertilized embryo is not a person, for some odd reason you seem to think I’m religious!

At 18 weeks babies can now survive. Aborting at 24 weeks is extremely disturbing.

Edited by Kawasicki on Monday 28th May 18:19

So you're one of use then. The only difference is a matter of dates.

There's a certain non-sequitur in 12 weeks and 18, but then there's no incontrovertible logic in any side's argument.

Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 28th May 20:21

[anonymous-user]

Kawasicki said:

Maybe I should. Does my opinion upset you? Your opinion doesn’t upset me. Since we are being daft. If the UK were to restrict abortion to less than 22 weeks would you move to another country that allowed terminations hours/minutes/seconds before birth?

You opinion seems to be that you would favour a reduction in the number of weeks an abortion would be allowed.

Which seems at odds with some of your original posts. I'd be in favour of regular and robust checks of the limits - although if I have it correct the Irish have voted to allow abortion only up to 12 weeks.