The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

dr.fuzzenstein

Da Boss wrote: »

My mother couldn’t make a choice, that’s the point I’m making. That meant she’d to carry me and she’s happy she done so having realized she’d otherwise have being a murderer. Regards brain dead people your again off topic

It is fairly clear that you have an unwavering viewpoint and that you will not change it under any circumstances.
While it is admirable if genuine, it does make discussion with you somewhat pointless.
If something is absolutely black and white and clearcut to a person, there is no point even trying to convince that person otherwise.
Some posters just have to realize that some battles are pointless, it is the majority that has to be won and it will never happen that everyone agrees.

Bannasidhe

Da Boss wrote: »

My mother couldn’t make a choice, that’s the point I’m making. That meant she’d to carry me and she’s happy she done so having realized she’d otherwise have being a murderer. Regards brain dead people your again off topic

She did make a choice.

She decided not to travel.
She decided not to give you up for adoption.
She decided not to commit suicide.

applehunter

eviltwin wrote: »

I didn't make a mistake. I know my own mind. I made my choice under careful consideration and I knew it was the right one. I have never felt any regret and if I could go back and make a different choice I wouldn't.

FYI my abortion was at nine weeks, it wasnt a child.

Sounds like a coping mechanism.

Dehumanise then kill.

It's easier that way.

captbarnacles

So his mother was glad state forced her to carry to term and hence other women shouldn't have a choice because they don't 'really' know what they want and will inevitably love motherhood

volchitsa

captbarnacles wrote: »

So his mother was glad state forced her to carry to term and hence other women shouldn't have a choice because they don't 'really' know what they want and will inevitably love motherhood

Funny none of these women ever seem to feel strongly enough about this to come out and say so themselves isn't it?

If she told her son, you'd think she'd want to let other women know at first hand.

They're the ones she'd need to influence, surely? Not her poor son who's clearly traumatized by the idea that he had such a narrow escape.

eviltwin

applehunter wrote: »

Sounds like a coping mechanism.

Dehumanise then kill.

It's easier that way.

No, I'm just stating a fact. I had an abortion, I didn't kill a child. A nine week embryo is not a child. Coping mechanism for what? Do you really think I'd be pro choice if I thought I'd made a mistake?

applehunter

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

(a) De Boss here today posting on this thread whatever you may thing of his opinion

(b) I wouldn't. I'd be a woman and children first advocate on the Titanic.

NuMarvel

Da Boss wrote: »

Seriously, out of interest, how is it I’m not engaging with good faith?

Because, quite seriously, your posts make Donald Trump look sane and reasonable, eg:

Da Boss wrote: »

I think that says all I need to know about you and your conscience (or lack of more like) . You have blood on your hands, you ended the life of another and you don’t seem to think of it twice, to me that’s scary, you show any compassion, or are you as it appears?- stone hearted

Da Boss wrote: »

All murderers should serve their time

Da Boss wrote: »

You can’t face the facts , that’s your problem, unable to admit you condone MURDER , The KILLINGS of defenseless unborn . The 8th amendment is about so much more than woman’s freedom, it’s about SAVING LIVES OF THOUSANDS, legalized abortion cos cause more loss of life than English colonization ever did on this island

Da Boss wrote: »

Beats being a murderer for the rest your life

My advice for what it's worth is to dial the hyperbole waaaay back and learn that repeating the same point over and over again isn't the way to have a proper discussion.

You've been asked some very good and valid questions. If you're as certain in the validity of your position as you claim, then you'll surely have no problems engaging with those posters properly.

NuMarvel

applehunter wrote: »

(a) De Boss here today posting on this thread whatever you may thing of his opinion.

A claim by an anonymous poster on an internet forum about what a third party supposedly told him can not be taken as evidence that the 8th works. Or of anything else for that matter.

January

applehunter wrote: »

Sounds like a coping mechanism.

Dehumanise then kill.

It's easier that way.

Not at all. I was fully aware I was aborting a potential life as I'm sure others who have abortions are well aware too. My need to prioritise the 4 children I already had and myself was greater than my need to bring another child into this world.

end of the road

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Lifestyle' - much bandied about during the marriage equality campaign again but hard to define. What exactly do you mean by lifestyle? Do you think people should be routinely denied medical procedures due to lifestyle? Smokers? Drinkers? Cyclists? Participants in sports? Lovers of fast food?

no as the medical procedures they would require would be necessary. outside extreme circumstances i believe the killing of the unborn to be unnecessary so it shouldn't be provided in the state.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you saying abortion should be illegal but the State should provide aftercare?

i believe so yes . the state shoudld not provide abortion bar extreme circumstances, however after care maybe necessary and if not provided could potentially be serious, so yes the state should provide it. essentially i want to make it difficult for people to procure abortions and make them think about other options.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why is it the State's job to provide medication to aid people with erectile dysfunction?

it's not IMO.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or lung cancer due to smoking?

because that is a life saving procedure. just like abortion in extreme circumstances would be.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This whole 'lifestyle' route you're taking is a very rocky road.

it doesn't have to be though.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you think we need this in the Constitution? Should people be prosecuted? Is it murder??

yes i believe it should be in the constitution. yes i believe people should be prosecuted for a crime should they starve someone to death. there should be a procedure in place where if someone is brain dead that they are able to be given an injection that would end their suffering quickly

The_Valeyard

NuMarvel wrote: »

A claim by an anonymous poster on an internet forum about what a third party supposedly told him can not be taken as evidence that the 8th works. Or of anything else for that matter.

Same could be said about any poster or moderator in this thread.

eviltwin

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Same could be said about any poster or moderator in this thread.

Most of the personal stories here have been posted in some form or another before, going back years in some cases. I don't think it's a case of making stuff up to suit an agenda.

applehunter

NuMarvel wrote: »

A claim by an anonymous poster on an internet forum about what a third party supposedly told him can not be taken as evidence that the 8th works. Or of anything else for that matter.

I agree its a stupid question.

NuMarvel

applehunter wrote: »

I agree its a stupid question.

It's a very good question, you just gave a really poor answer. Which is probably why you're saying it's a stupid question.

Bannasidhe

end of the road wrote: »

no as the medical procedures they would require would be necessary. outside extreme circumstances i believe the killing of the unborn to be unnecessary so it shouldn't be provided in the state.

But if people didn't engage in certain lifestyle choices these procedures would not be necessary. Do smokers not choose to risk lung cancer by indulging in an activity they know is dangerous? Why should the State provide resources to treat a self-inflicted condition?

Who gets to decide what is an extreme circumstance? How is that defined in law?

Are only physical medical circumstances allowed? Does the health of the woman factor? Are possible medical consequences allowed or must it be definite? What if the impact on the woman's health isn't dangerous at 9 weeks but as gestation continues the effects would grow more life threatening and by 22 weeks could be fatal? Would she have to wait and see?

Is mental health taken into consideration? History of severe postpartum depression leading to suicide attempts - should a form of Russian roulette be played with the woman's life?

Is homelessness an extreme circumstance?

Rape?

Poverty?

i believe so yes . the state shoudld not provide abortion bar extreme circumstances, however after care maybe necessary and if not provided could potentially be serious, so yes the state should provide it. essentially i want to make it difficult for people to procure abortions and make them think about other options.

Do you really think women just go 'hoo hum... up the duff... ooopsie... better book an abortion before the weekend so I can paaaarty'.

The vast vast majority of Women do consider the other options and then make an informed adult decision.

Who gets to decide which option is 'best' for a minor?

it's not IMO.

But the State disagrees and pays so some men who cannot get an erection 'naturally' are helped... which could lead to a woman becoming pregnant when she doesn't want to be... but then that woman can't get the State to pay for her not to be pregnant...

It's mad Ted.

because that is a life saving procedure. just like abortion in extreme circumstances would be.

But.... but... lifestyle.

it doesn't have to be though.

It does if it comes down to a situation where the consequences of some -
frankly dangerous -lifestyle choices are paid for by the State but others are not. Who decides???

yes i believe it should be in the constitution. yes i believe people should be prosecuted for a crime should they starve someone to death. there should be a procedure in place where if someone is brain dead that they are able to be given an injection that would end their suffering quickly

But what if the person woke up before starving to death?? Just like we keep hearing about how a fetus with fatal foetal abnormalities can live for a while after birth so aborting them should remain illegal.

A lethal injection would make that impossible.

applehunter

January wrote: »

Not at all. I was fully aware I was aborting a potential life as I'm sure others who have abortions are well aware too. My need to prioritise the 4 children I already had and myself was greater than my need to bring another child into this world.

What is the difference between referring to the life as "not a child" and "potential life"?

It's dehumanising language.

applehunter

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's a very good question, you just gave a really poor answer. Which is probably why you're saying it's a stupid question.

It's a trick question.

I gave a flippant answer.

The answer is that it protects the life of the unborn in Ireland. That is a positive for me.

Bannasidhe

applehunter wrote: »

What is the difference between referring to the life as "not a child" and "potential life"?

It's dehumanising language.

Write to your TD and ask why child benefit isn't paid for a fetus.
Is the State saying they aren't human or is the State saying they are not a child?

Why when a child is eventually born isn't child benefit backed dated to the time of conception?

Is something that cannot possibly survive without a 'host' truly alive or does it merely exist with the potential to eventually be alive?

Bannasidhe

applehunter wrote: »

It's a trick question.

I gave a flippant answer.

The answer is that it protects the life of the unborn in Ireland. That is a positive for me.

It doesn't you know. It simply exports the problem.

captbarnacles

To add to the above: why does he State not think aborting a fetus is murder?

applehunter

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Write to your TD and ask why child benefit isn't paid for a fetus.

I won't be doing that. I will let my 2 local TDs know what I thought of their votes at the Oireachtas hearings though.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is the State saying they aren't human or is the State saying they are not a child?

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why when a child is eventually born isn't child benefit backed dated to the time of conception?

Government like paperwork. Birth Certs. can be photocopied.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is something that cannot possibly survive without a 'host' truly alive or does it merely exist with the potential to eventually be alive?

This logic defies our humanity.

end of the road

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But if people didn't engage in certain lifestyle choices these procedures would not be necessary. Do smokers not choose to risk lung cancer by indulging in an activity they know is dangerous? Why should the State provide resources to treat a self-inflicted condition?

nobody chooses to get cancer. yes they may take part in an activity that has a chance of increasing it but they don't set out to deliberately get cancer. someone who sets out to have an abortion is deliberately setting out to kill the unborn. so while the cancer may be caused by a self-inflicted activity it will definitely kill someone if not treated, and the state has a duty to save life.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who gets to decide what is an extreme circumstance? How is that defined in law?

usually the extreme circumstances are where the mother's life is in danger or there is a serious health risk, or the baby cannot be caried to term. the legislators would be writing the legislation.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are only physical medical circumstances allowed? Does the health of the woman factor? Are possible medical consequences allowed or must it be definite? What if the impact on the woman's health isn't dangerous at 9 weeks but as gestation continues the effects would grow more life threatening and by 22 weeks could be fatal? Would she have to wait and see?

it will depend on what the circumstances are but i'd reccan what i have suggested above should cover the situations where abortion would be necessary including most of your above suggestions where there would be serious consiquences.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is mental health taken into consideration? History of severe postpartum depression leading to suicide attempts - should a form of Russian roulette be played with the woman's life?

we have a system to deal with the mental health issues, so no . it needs improving vastly so that it can properly help people in that situation. abortion isn't needed for that IMO.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is homelessness an extreme circumstance?

Rape?

Poverty?

no IMO

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you really think women just go 'hoo hum... up the duff... ooopsie... better book an abortion before the weekend so I can paaaarty'.

no i don't think that happens. but that doesn't mean that their decisian is necessary.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The vast vast majority of Women do consider the other options and then make an informed adult decision.

abortion is the wrong decisian bar extreme circumstances.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But the State disagrees and pays so some men who cannot get an erection 'naturally' are helped...

again i believe it shouldn't pay for that.

Bannasidhe

applehunter wrote: »

I won't be doing that. I will let my 2 local TDs know what I thought of their votes at the Oireachtas hearings though.



The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.



Government like paperwork. Birth Certs. can be photocopied.



This logic defies our humanity.

Yeah - none of that actually answered the question of what exactly defines when a fetus becomes a child now does it?
Is a embryo with no brain function a child?
Human - yes. A child. No.

Children are currently homeless.
Children are lying on hospital trolleys.
Children are living in agony waiting for medical procedures.
Where are their Constitutional rights to be cherished?
Are you going to write to your two TDs and give them you option of that?


The Constitution says 'unborn' not child.
The State does not recognise the unborn as a 'child'.
The State via the HSE facilitates ending pregnancies.

It would be a simple matter to count back from DOB - but they don't. Why? Because the Irish State using the moment of birth as the defining point.
Not conception.

All the 8th Amendment is is a hypocritical and cynical piece of BS that gives lip service to the punish the slags (ie any woman who had sex for pleasure) brigade who fear allowing women control over their own bodies.

The 8th will be repealed - hopefully soon so my granddaughter isn't forced to have these ridiculous discussions in the future.

end of the road

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It doesn't you know. It simply exports the problem.

which in turn makes the killing of the unborn bar extreme circumstances more difficult and expensive, in turn deterring some from making the trip, meaning some lives are saved. so in terms of abortion on demand it does work to an extent.

Bannasidhe

end of the road wrote: »

which in turn makes the killing of the unborn bar extreme circumstances more difficult and expensive, in turn deterring some from making the trip, meaning some lives are saved. so in terms of abortion on demand it does work to an extent.

What about the lives of women and girls it has cost?
Dodgy on-line pills.
Botched DIY abortions.
Suicide.

Do they not count? Or are they just collateral damage?

It's not saving lives - it's punishing the poor. You seem to feel it's acceptable that those who can afford it can travel for terminations but the less well off must suffer the consequences.

I notice you are still talking about 'extreme' circumstances while failing to address exactly how to define them.

Do you want to know how I define it? - being pregnant when you really really don't want to be. That's pretty ucking extreme mentally, physically, and emotionally.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Write to your TD and ask why child benefit isn't paid for a fetus.
Is the State saying they aren't human or is the State saying they are not a child?

Why when a child is eventually born isn't child benefit backed dated to the time of conception?

Because one of the conditions for qualifying for child benefit is that the child is actually born -

You need to apply for Child Benefit within 12 months of:
The birth of your baby or
The month the child became a member of your family or
The month the family came to live in Ireland.

The State is simply saying those are the criteria under which you can apply for child benefit.

Is something that cannot possibly survive without a 'host' truly alive or does it merely exist with the potential to eventually be alive?

The whole "alive" criteria is a red herring, because it isn't a consideration in Irish law where the term "the unborn", is defined as -

“unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman;


“woman” means a female person of any age.

captbarnacles wrote: »

To add to the above: why does he State not think aborting a fetus is murder?

The State treats them as two different things because they are two different things. Why would the State regard abortion as murder? Some people may believe that abortion is murder, but legally speaking they would be incorrect, and that's important because it is only in a legal context that human rights are recognised either. Ireland is one of only three countries in Europe which acknowledges the legal right to life of the unborn, and introduced the 8th amendment to vindicate and protect that right as far as was practical, which means that in cases where it simply isn't practical to view the right to life of the unborn and the right to life of the woman as equal, the woman's right to life takes precedence over the right to life of the unborn, as one would logically expect, in theory at least.

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

which in turn makes the killing of the unborn bar extreme circumstances more difficult and expensive, in turn deterring some from making the trip, meaning some lives are saved. so in terms of abortion on demand it does work to an extent.

WOW. Wow. Your hatred of women really coming out now EOTR. So, forcing women to have babies is good because reasons and there should be a massive financial expense and difficulty for women who travel for one, because fcuk those women.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because one of the conditions for qualifying for child benefit is that the child is actually born -

You need to apply for Child Benefit within 12 months of:
The birth of your baby or
The month the child became a member of your family or
The month the family came to live in Ireland.

The State is simply saying those are the criteria under which you can apply for child benefit.

No. The State is saying after birth is when it acknowledges the child as a separate person exists.
It is immaterial where the child was born or at what state of gestation. From the moment of birth it exists as a legal entity and becomes entitled to benefits.

All of this brandishing about terms like child in the womb is emotive nonsense - particularly when it is a embryonic clump of cells.

The whole "alive" criteria is a red herring, because it isn't a consideration in Irish law where the term "the unborn", is defined as -

“unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman;


“woman” means a female person of any age.

Yeah, thanks for mansplaining what unborn means - I was getting it confused with undead.

Now, let me return the favour by womansplaining that a woman is an adult female not a female of any age. The framers of this ridiculous piece of bunkum failed to acknowledge that there are non-adult females in this country who through no fault of their own become pregnant. There are 10 year old girls capable of becoming pregnant - they are not 'women' - they are children. Children this hideous clause would force to become mothers.

which means that in cases where it simply isn't practical to view the right to life of the unborn and the right to life of the woman as equal, the woman's right to life takes precedence over the right to life of the unborn, as one would logically expect, in theory at least.

But it doesn't. What has actually happened is medical staff are so unclear about the law they wait until the balance of probability means the women is over 50% likely to die - would you like those odds if it was your life on the line?

end of the road

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What about the lives of women and girls it has cost?
Dodgy on-line pills.
Botched DIY abortions.
Suicide.

Do they not count? Or are they just collateral damage?

they do count, and their deaths are very sad. but for me i don't think those issues are enough for abortion on demand to be legal. strict customs controls would make the purchasing of dodgy pills difficult and a good mental health system would be able to help people at risk of mental health issues.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's not saving lives - it's punishing the poor. You seem to feel it's acceptable that those who can afford it can travel for terminations but the less well off must suffer the consequences.

i don't agree with anyone traveling to procure an abortion but if some are stopped with the current system then i believe that is the best option. the 8th is saving some lives. yes it causes other problems and it is unfortunate that i can't vote yes to repeal as much as i would like to, but i cannot and will not support abortion being availible on demand in ireland.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I notice you are still talking about 'extreme' circumstances while failing to ask exactly how to define them.

i gave some examples of what i believe to be extreme circumstances.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you want to know how I define it? - being pregnant when you really really don't want to be. That's pretty ucking extreme mentally, physically, and emotionally.

i don't agree simply being pregnant when you don't want to be is an extreme situation requiring abortion. i have no doubt it is draining mentally physically and emotionally and i sympathise but i don't believe it's grounds for abortion. abortion is not a solution to non-extreme problems.