The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

UK doctors don't have to lie. Read the provision. Because of the drafting, termination is always permissible. That was the flaw (or perhaps the genius) in their law.

You are going to make me paste it in, aren't you?

OK, you're wrong:

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—

(a)that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or

(b)that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or

(c)that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or

(d)that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.]

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

I thought you knew something about this stuff.

I do. The single most powerful speech in the entire debate was by panti. Do you want me to link that, too? You know perfectly well the one I mean.

drkpower

Read section a again.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I do. The single most powerful speech in the entire debate was by panti. Do you want me to link that, too? You know perfectly well the one I mean.

Do u accept she took a step back for strategic reasons?

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

Read section a again.

Are you are arguing about the value of X again? 12, 24, 10 weeks? That was not all all an accident, it is written there in black and white, and I don't care if it says 2 or 20.

The real meat of the law is before that: two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith

They don't have to be right. They don't have to be good at it. They just have to be registered.

And if anyone thinks they should be charged with anything, their defence is right there, I'm registered and I formed my opinion in good faith. Abortion on demand.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Are you are arguing about the value of X again? 12, 24, 10 weeks? That was not all all an accident, it is written there in black and white, and I don't care if it says 2 or 20.

The real meat of the law is before that: two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith

They don't have to be right. They don't have to be good at it. They just have to be registered.

And if anyone thinks they should be charged with anything, their defence is right there, I'm registered and I formed my opinion in good faith. Abortion on demand.

Section a.

Continuance of the pregnancy always involves greater risk than a termination. That is why doctors don't have to lie.

drkpower

The 1967 Abortion Act took the concept of wellbeing further, by indicating that an abortion was lawful if 'the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman' (emphasis added). In 2012, medical evidence is clear that, purely on a physical level, abortion carries less risk of maternal mortality and morbidity than does childbirth.

https://www.bpas.org/get-involved/advocacy/briefings/abortion-law/

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

Continuance of the pregnancy always involves greater risk than a termination. That is why doctors don't have to lie.

What exactly do you imagine the new Irish legislation will say?

That they should lie back and think of Erin?

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What exactly do you imagine the new Irish legislation will say?

Hard to say at this juncture, but not a chance that it will be as loose as the uk legislation. Lessons have been learned. It will be much much tighter, and sadly, court battles will probably lie ahead in a few edge cases.

I don't welcome that, Im just objective enough to have a sense of what will transpire.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

Do u accept she took a step back for strategic reasons?

Tactically, she may have preferred to make it not just about her, which I respect. It didn't work well, many outlets described Panti as the face of marriage equality.

And she did not lie, and did not hide what she thought we should do.

And we did it anyway.

david75

Let’s not forget Iona and co kicked off the marriage equality debate a year before it even started by spectacularly shooting themselves and their campaign in the face and suing panti and RTÉ for something Brendan o Conor actually said and panti got sued for just for replying to his question and by default agreeing. Yes they still are homophobic in case anyone was wondering.

Those same same people are running this campaign. Let’s look around and wonder how and why that is. And lets then allow them to continue to hang themselves every time they open their mouths.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Tactically, she may have preferred to make it not just about her, which I respect. It didn't work well, many outlets described Panti as the face of marriage equality.

And she did not lie, and did not hide what she thought we should do.

And we did it anyway.

It was a little bit more than 'just not about her' which is clear from both the article and the documentary which I'm sure you watched.

She recognised that her being a primary advocate would turn off some of the middle ground. She is owed a huge debt of gratitude for that selfless approach.

I am sigggesting you and others could learn from that approach. Or not.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

Lessons have been learned. It will be much much tighter, and sadly, court battles will probably lie ahead in a few edge cases.

How about we learn a lesson and pass a law that means we don't have to go to the Supreme Court just to find out what the law we just passed means?

The obvious solution is what Leo Varadkar said the other night:

No longer an article of our Constitution, but rather a private and personal matter for women and doctors. No more X cases, C cases, Miss Ys or Miss A, Miss B, or Miss C.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

I am sigggesting you and others could learn from that approach. Or not.

Eh, no. It was a stupid idea in 1983 and I told everyone in sight. Now it is a 1980s stupid idea dripping in blood.

Not going to lie.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How about we learn a lesson and pass a law that means we don't have to go to the Supreme Court just to find out what the law we just passed means?

The obvious solution is what Leo Varadkar said the other night:

No longer an article of our Constitution, but rather a private and personal matter for women and doctors. No more X cases, C cases, Miss Ys or Miss A, Miss B, or Miss C.

That was a sound bite. The legislation will be much more difficult.

History has shown us that it will be very difficult to craft legislation immune from challenge. Sure we could do what the uk did, but that simply won't pass in Ireland. Or at least today's Ireland. Step by step is what will have to happen.

But if you try and hurdle those steps, you will only risk losing the main objective.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Eh, no. It was a stupid idea in 1983 and I told everyone in sight. Now it is a 1980s stupid idea dripping in blood.

Not going to lie.

No one mentioned 1983. 1983 has nothing to do with the strategic approach that need to be adopted now. This referendum is not some sort of revenge for 1983.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

This referendum is not some sort of revenge for 1983.

Anyone who voted no in 1983 and has had to watch the slow motion train crash since will celebrate when this abomination is deleted from our Constitution.

It won't be revenge, the people responsible are mostly dead now, and their driving philosophy is in terminal decline, but when this one goes, it will be a milestone.

And I mean in 2018, 2028, 2038, whenever. I will see it gone before I die.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

But if you try and hurdle those steps, you will only risk losing the main objective.

I'm sorry, what is your main objective exactly?

I'm not sure we are on the same page there. Or book. Maybe in the same library, maybe not.

nozzferrahhtoo

_Roz_ wrote: »

To me the only difference between an abortion at 12 weeks and one at say 8 months, is the distress and pain for the potential life, and for the mother. But I don't think one is morally worse than the other, just more traumatic.

Well I would say that is no small difference given there IS no distress and pain for the fetus at 12 weeks. At all. The lights are off and no one is home. You will cause no more stress and pain in the world from terminating a fetus than you will from taking a hammer to a mannequin.

The reason one is morally worse than the other is that one would be killing an actual sentient entity. The other is not. Saying one is not worse than the other is basically like saying jabbing needles into a dog is no worse than jabbing them into an amoeba.

Jim Ellis wrote: »

Have a read of this to see the baby's development at 12 weeks: Tell me that's not a human life?

No one is saying it is not "human life" in terms of taxonomy and biological function however. They are saying it is not "Human life" in terms of person-hood and sentience as it has neither. Just because structures have formed and autonomic responses make some of them flap about or clench, that does not make it a "human" in any sense we should actually have concern for.

Jim Ellis wrote: »

I know you probably won't though because most on the repeal side are afraid to confront what they're actually campaigning for.

Yet you will find that I not only have seen 1000s of those images, I have the knowledge to know exactly what I am looking at too. I do not need to "confront" anything. I know the images AND the biology and detail behind them very intimately indeed. And I assure you there is nothing in EITHER those images or that knowledge that gives me any moral pause regarding abortion at 12 weeks.

The morality of an action is not based on what that action LOOKS like either. I do not particularly like looking at pictures of heart bypass surgery either as it is gory and bloody and unpleasant. That does not make heart bypass surgery immoral though.

So no, I do not think mere images are going to succeed for you where rational argument and debate is clearly failing.

RobertKK wrote: »

Some people have lives and I don't have time to reply to everything.

Despite being on the forum 5 yeas LESS than me you have around 400% MORE posts than me. So no I do not buy that cop out at all. You have been systematically ignoring my posts and points, and I think that is clear to everyone.

RobertKK wrote: »

I mean I got a loads of people quoting me, I am not going to reply to all and especially not long winded posted that are divided up like the above.

Says you while actually responding to that post above You are contradicting your own canard here now.

RobertKK wrote: »

I did answer one of those questions you asked but you missed it.

Link?

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Yes but if this happens in debates I can see there being trouble! Can you?

Perhaps but it depends how we deal with it. For example on this very thread a user was banned for making claims about the quantities of repeal camp wanting no limits abortion, but refusing to back up that claim in any way.

It was not even a PERMban. The user was told they COULD post on the thread again if only they would try to back up the claim. Said user, for obvious reasons, never returned. Because the claim simply could not be backed up. And they knew it as well as we did.

So if someone is making a SIMILAR claim, only specifically about TDs rather than the repeal camp as a whole..... then I think it fair and consistent that such claims be treated with the same level of "Conversational intolerance" (as Sam Harris would call it) and evidence be demanded of them in general. And excuses for not affording that evidence not tolerated or pandered to.

There is going to be a LOT of lies and misrepresentation and scaremongering (alas from both sides I am sure) in the coming months. And the onus is on ALL of us not to let it slide, and to call it out, at every turn until either the claimant A) Runs away (common) or admits "Yes you are right, I have absolutely no evidence AT ALL to offer to back up this narrative" (much less common) or C) actually presents the evidence for their claims (not as common as I would like).

I do not think we can have a sane debate on any issue, but less one this emotive, if we do not hold stringently and stridently to SOME level of shared truth and reality and substantiation. Even if that means calling out people who are on our "side" and will be voting how we want them to. I am a firm believer in cleaning up ones own house, before checking for dust on the sideboards in anyone else's.

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge we are voting to allow abortion up to twelve weeks. As in the marriage referendum we were voting to allow marriage regardless of gender.
If people are told by TD's they support abortion up to twelve weeks I believe it will pass but if there is to much doubt on this being expanded in the future I could see it causing the campaign trouble because lets face it people on the pro life side will use this as a tactic.
With the marriage referendum a line often used by the no side was it will lead to polygamy and the td's etc could say no it will not we are voting on allowing marriage regardless of gender. There was no doubt and it was clear cut. Similar with this referendum we need to make sure people known what they voting on and there is no doubt.

Sure only a few weeks ago you were saying 12 weeks was too much!!
I dunno but you keep finding fault with eveything. All your posts seem to be low level giving reasons to vote no. Its kinda like now you realised 12 weeks might win that you then bring in hardline TDs. At every opportunity you are doing it. "But what about x" and X is always a reason to vote no to repeal.

ForestFire

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Sure only a few weeks ago you were saying 12 weeks was too much!!
I dunno but you keep finding fault with eveything. All your posts seem to be low level giving reasons to vote no. Its kinda like now you realised 12 weeks might win that you then bring in hardline TDs. At every opportunity you are doing it. "But what about x" and X is always a reason to vote no to repeal.

I don't even know the background to this, But are people not allowed to progress their views, add to their views as new information is presented.

If you asking everyone to stick to what they thought or said 2 weeks ago, that just seems like trying to stop the discussion.

ohnonotgmail

ForestFire wrote: »

I don't even know the background to this, But are people not allowed to progress their views, add to their views as new information is presented.

If you asking everyone to stick to what they thought or said 2 weeks ago, that just seems like trying to stop the discussion.

that isn't what Joey said at all. It is not about progressing views. it is about continually finding something else to cast doubt on when the last thing they cast doubt on is no longer an issue. Claiming to be pro choice but doing all they can to undermine it. a cuckoo in the nest

ForestFire

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

finding something else to cast doubt on

Sorry but this is asking people to stop discussing, trying to shut down debate.

If something new is raised , then counter it, but don't try to stop new arguments/info.

ohnonotgmail

ForestFire wrote: »

Sorry but this is asking people to stop discussing, trying to shut down debate.

If something new is raised , then counter it, but don't try to stop new arguments/info.

You clearly didnt read what i posted

splinter65

drkpower wrote: »

No one mentioned 1983. 1983 has nothing to do with the strategic approach that need to be adopted now. This referendum is not some sort of revenge for 1983.

For some people it is.

baylah17

splinter65 wrote: »

For some people it is.

No, not revenge for 1983, but perhaps vindication for the victims of 1983 and the promise of a better future for women.

seamus

ForestFire wrote: »

I don't even know the background to this, But are people not allowed to progress their views, add to their views as new information is presented.

If you asking everyone to stick to what they thought or said 2 weeks ago, that just seems like trying to stop the discussion.

It's called "shifting the goalposts".

Someone claims that they're opposed to something because of X.

When you illustrate that X is not an issue they don't stop being opposed, instead they say, "But what about Y?"

Which means that they've made up their mind ultimately, and it's not about X or Y at all.

_Roz_

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well I would say that is no small difference given there IS no distress and pain for the fetus at 12 weeks. At all. The lights are off and no one is home. You will cause no more stress and pain in the world from terminating a fetus than you will from taking a hammer to a mannequin.

The reason one is morally worse than the other is that one would be killing an actual sentient entity. The other is not. Saying one is not worse than the other is basically like saying jabbing needles into a dog is no worse than jabbing them into an amoeba.

Respectfully disagree. That analogy doesn't hold on a moral level, for me. It does on a practical level, and is exactly why abortions up to 12 weeks should be allowed, because if you're going to do it, do it when the foetus won't know jack about it, and the difference between early and late abortions is the difference between jabbing an amoeba and jabbing a dog, absolutely. But on a moral level, what you're equating is preventing a life from growing with arbitrarily sticking needles into living creatures. And if you said to me, well then compare it with either destroying an amoeba, or destroying a dog, and I would say you can't compare that either, as both animals are at the height of their development. The difference is, an amoeba will never be a sentient individual, and a dog, similar to a human, becomes one as a puppy. (Humans also become sentient as puppies, clearly :pac:). So this analogy/argument omits the fundamental thing I am focusing on, which is the prevention of completion of a process.

nozzferrahhtoo

_Roz_ wrote: »

So this analogy/argument omits the fundamental thing I am focusing on, which is the prevention of completion of a process.

And as I said, including with my thought experiment about an AI, I see no reason why a process places any moral onus on us to allow it, or help it to, complete. It is not mere processes we afford moral and ethical concern to.

A good starting point is to go back to basics on it. Ask yourself what rights, morals, ethics are even FOR. What do they DO? What is their function?

So far I have not met a single person who has given me any answer to that other than to say that rights and morals are for mediating the actions of sentient entities towards the well being and rights of other sentient entities.

Nothing about processes. The idea we have moral regard for processes is just not a "feeling" I can share without something more solid in terms of reasoning or philosophy to suggest I should. And as such I think that while I feel you are going to vote the correct way, you are going to suffer a little needlessly for doing so.

Zubeneschamali

_Roz_ wrote: »

So this analogy/argument omits the fundamental thing I am focusing on, which is the prevention of completion of a process.

It's true, 12 weeks is an arbitrary line in a process. The law today has 2 arbitrary lines - implantation (which is a strange one) and birth. Neither of these is magic - a baby 1 day before birth is vary similar to a baby one day after. Fertilization is a more obvious line than implantation, but whatever.

I don't see why the fact that the process has started puts any moral obligation on anyone to see the process through.