Ireland's 8th Amendment Repeal: Why Are They Celebrating?

Photo by Max Rossi/Reuters

Yesterday's post has got a lot of hits because of its controversial subject. Even now, Irish women continue to celebrate the results of the referendum to repeal the amendment, which gave foetuses the right to protection under the law. Pro-lifers think it's ugly and this post is for them. I'm going to explain what it's all about.

Yesterday I wrote about my journey from pro-life to pro-choice and came to this conclusion:

I don't like abortion. I wish they never happened, but I can also see that banning them causes unnecessary suffering for both mother and child in cases where her life is endangered. When that's not the case, she's reduced to a talking incubator by the "love both" brigade, who have little interest in her welfare and are all over the foetus until after it is born, when they lose interest. Ultimately, the success of the Repeal side was not about letting rampant hoochies use abortion as a contraceptive but about ending the suffering of women in crisis pregnancies by allowing them to access the help they need at home. If you really love both, in my opinion, you don't let either of them suffer if you can help it.- Ireland's 8th Amendment Referendum: What It Means And Why It Matters, by Wendy Cockcroft for On t'Internet

Just in case you missed the point, here it is again: "both" weren't being loved; the woman's health played second fiddle to the existence of the foetus while its heart continued to beat until after the death of Savita Halappanavar, the Indian dentist who died in Galway after being refused an abortion when her miscarriage went septic. After that, the law changed but was not specific enough to guarantee women the right to treatment that ensured the best outcome for their health and wellbeing. Ultimately, the No faction lost for these reasons:

1. they really don't care about women's suffering
2.  they're not that crazy about "the foetus" either
3. the "feckless whores" narrative continues
4. they don't truly believe in their own propaganda

They don't care about women's suffering

I've been using the "In Her Shoes" tweetstorm to get the message across to no avail. They really don't care, and ultimately that is why they lost. Now look at this tweet from Irenist:

“Give us Barabbas!” https://t.co/CNqMGy7qcb

— Irenist 🇻🇦🇺🇸🇮🇪 (@1renist) May 26, 2018

The "baby-killers!" narrative is strong with this one. Now see his response to my In Her Shoes post. Go on, look at it. There's your problem. I've shown similar things to David French et al but idealogues don't give a rat's and never will because the foetus trumps all. They will watch, their jaws slack with dismay as the rest of the world moves away from them and like Hiroo Onoda they will continue to ineffectively wage war on women's reproductive rights until they finally run out of support.

They're not that crazy about "the foetus" either

I was shocked to learn that in the event of an inevitable miscarriage, nothing is done to save the foetus in utero.

In fact bar looking after me nothing was being done to help my babies. I was told there was no point taking my iron and folic acid supplements. Basically there was no hope for my babies as far as medicine in Ireland was concerned yet I had to remain pregnant.

— In Her Shoes (@InHerIrishShoes) May 20, 2018

Read that again. So, despite a constitutional requirement to put the life of the foetus on the same legal footing as the mother, doctors would do nothing at all to try to save the pregnancy because they felt obliged to let nature take its course. And for the same reason, they did nothing to end the mother's torment; she was obliged to see it through to the end, her son slowly drying out against the wall of her womb beside a rotting placenta where her daughter used to be. If the pro-lifers were as crazy about the foetus as they claimed to be they'd be up in arms. Read through her thread; they're not even there. And few of them complained when the benefits cap was introduced; some Anglican bishops and members of other faith groups complained that more abortions would result — but where the hell were the pro-life organisations? They should have been going nuts, but they weren't.

The "feckless whores" narrative continues

This is a typical pro-life comment:

Dale Mcalpine • 2 months ago

God hates the hands that shed innocent blood Proverbs 6:16-17.
To suggest that God is looking on, while wicked mothers and doctors take part in tearing babies apart limb from limb inside the womb, with an attitude of "I hate that sin, but love you sinners" is an insult to Almighty God, who is perfectly righteous.
God does not love the sinner and hate the sin, as Ghandi told the world.

Wicked mothers and doctors tearing babies apart limb from limb in the womb. There you go. I presume the doctor sews the pieces back together just so he can place them on a railway track and "Muahahahahaaa!" twirling his moustache as the train approaches. This completely denies the reality of abortion seekers and their suffering; to Dale, they're just the murderers Kevin D. Williamson wants to hang, and they deserve to. It's this refusal to take on board the reality of suffering that dooms them to lose this battle in the culture wars. Nobody wants to be expendable against their will.

They don't truly believe in their own propaganda

The trouble with the pro-life brigade is that what they say and what they do are different things. Take the "Life begins at conception" trope, for example. They're so committed to this they'll leave a rotting foetus in the womb for as long as the heart continues to beat because life is sacred, right? And the foetus, whose life begins at conception, should be given the same consideration as a born person, right? Okay, if we agree that this consideration should begin at conception, such that the morning after pill and the coil should be banned on the grounds that they might prevent a fertilised egg from implanting, shouldn't we grieve if it comes to our attention that a foetal life has ended? Shouldn't every foetus be given a name and a proper burial, no matter what stage its life ended at? Apparently there are exceptions to this:

Naah no need for that. That would mean a funeral daily

— Kuria Leneng'wesi (@Daianray) May 8, 2018

Erm, I think she means "monthly" but you get the idea. Kuria believes we should give the foetus the same respect we give to the dead but won't specify when this should begin. But if life begins at conception, surely to goodness that's when the respect should begin, right? Who's with me? I thought so. And there you have it, people, they don't truly believe in their own propaganda.

Conclusion

If you think the celebrations over the success of the Yes campaign were unseemly it's because you don't get what it is that's being celebrated. It's not "Yay! I can kill babies at will, people! Stick a machine gun up my hoo hoo and let 'er rip!" it's "We own our bodies now. Never again will a woman be made to suffer a prolonged miscarriage to satisfy religious or sentimental notions. We finally have the full right to life that was denied us before." If that doesn't make you re-think your position, lie back and try to enjoy losing the culture wars. As I said before, nobody wants to be expendable against their will.