The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Charmeleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are conflating two very different things and frankly speaking utter nonsense.

Baptism has no legal standing nor does it confer 'personhood'. Not being baptised meant a child/adult could not be buried in ground that was deemed consecrated to a Christian faith not that a child/adult wasn't a human.
It just so happened that most of the cemeteries in Ireland were controlled by the Roman Catholic Church and with their usual empathy they refused to allow proper burial. As we have seen, some parts of that particular organisation preferred septic tanks - even when disposing of baptised children.
ALL children born in Ireland since the enactment of the Registration of Births Act 1863 are required by law to be registered - once this is done they are legally a person - baptism or no baptism.

For example the Goldberg family of Harcourt St in Dublin appear in the census of 1911 as they are recognised as living human beings - they were not, however, baptised. http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Dublin/Fitzwilliam/Harcourt_Street/73041/

There were 3 Jewish cemeteries in Dublin alone, the oldest dating back to 1660. If unbaptised people - such as Jews - were not recognised as human why would they need cemeteries? According to your statement they would have been 'medical waste'.

You didn't really think that through did you?

The point you missed was how we define what constitutes a person of value or standing in the community varies by historical or cultural context. 'Fundamental human rights' by definition means you or I, the government or society have absolutely no business or input putting our own criteria or barriers in between a human and their fundamental rights. We can have additional rights but all human life has a basic right to life.

Martina1991

Andrew Beef wrote:

Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.

How can you say every foetus has a right to life except in those cases.

You're either for protecting every unborn child or you're not.

kylith

Charmeleon wrote: »

The point you missed was how we define what constitutes a person of value or standing in the community varies by historical or cultural context. 'Fundamental human rights' by definition means you or I, the government or society have absolutely no business or input putting our own criteria or barriers in between a human and their fundamental rights. We can have additional rights but all human life has a basic right to life.

Fundamental human rights are a human construct, guaranteed by the state. The universe, planet earth, or Nature does not give you a right to life. The universe doesn’t give a damn if you live or die.

JDD

I guess I must be an outlier a bit in my beliefs

I believe a foetus is human. I think these arguments are useless actually. I don't believe it has a soul as I'm not religious. I don't think any human has any automatic right to anything, except for the rules we as a society impose in order to ensure it doesn't all dissolve into anarchy.

Lets put the actual procreation aspect of it aside for moment. I think it would be completely immoral (not to say illegal) to create an embryo in a laboratory and then forceably implant it into someone and make them carry it to term. I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference that the embryo is a human. We accept all sorts of circumstances within our society where a human life is ended (self defence, war, the Pill, embryos in IVF clinics, etc). It's the equivalent of grevious bodily harm.

I still believe that a lot of motivation for holding a pro-life view is because of that bit at the start, the procreation bit. Because a woman engaged in the act of sex while knowing there's a small chance that their contraception could fail, that is excuse enough to say that the grevious bodily harm is warranted. And that stems from the archaic notion that the woman is responsible for upholding the moral stance that sex should not occur outside of solely wanted to procreate. A sort of "sure isn't it good enough for her, she shouldn't have been shagging around in the first place". Nowhere do you see this more than when people say they're in favour of repeal but only in cases of FFA (the foetus won't survive anyway) or rape (well sure she wasn't shagging around so she held up her moral side of the bargain, and god I'd look like an awful ****e if I made her stay pregnant after being raped).

Let me set out my stall here. I've had three kids, all C-sections. The three pregnancies and three surgical procedures have given me various health problems. My last pregnancy I had suspected placenta accretia, a very serious pregnancy complication. If I got pregnant again, I would have a 60-80% chance of actually having it. This may result in nothing more than a few blood transfusions at birth, or I may have permanent damage to my cervix, bladder, and surrounding organs, or (and it's difficult to find recent stats on this) there is a 7% maternal mortality rate.

I've got my tubes tied so I don't get pregnant again. But since my third pregnancy occurred even though I religiously (no pun intended) took the Pill, I can't be completely sure that I won't be one of the 0.1% who get pregnant after tubal ligation.

If I get pregnant again I'll be ordering the termination pill online before the 12 week mark. I can't take that sort of chance that my kids will be left without a mother. Nor do I want to take the chance that I'll be permanently incapacitated. It's not fair on me, and it's not fair on my children. I should be able to take this choice, for me and for my family, with the support of my GP. But I'm left trusting directions on a website and possibly having to turn up at St. Vincents A&E if something goes wrong. Under current legislation, I could be imprisoned. It's just a nonsensical situation.

So that's why I'm voting repeal. And I'll be trying to convince everyone I know to do the same.

Bannasidhe

Charmeleon wrote: »

The point you missed was how we define what constitutes a person of value or standing in the community varies by historical or cultural context. 'Fundamental human rights' by definition means you or I, the government or society have absolutely no business or input putting our own criteria or barriers in between a human and their fundamental rights. We can have additional rights but all human life has a basic right to life.

If that was your point it was badly made.
You made a statement of fact which simply isn't true.

At no point, historically or socially, has a fetus been considered to have fundamental human rights. Not even the 8th grants that as it does not recognise the unborn as a citizen just as 'alive'. Nor does the State recognise a fetus as a 'person' and as such does not extend the same rights as it does to a born child - hence no child benefit.

Charmeleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If that was your point it was badly made.
You made a statement of fact which simply isn't true.

At no point, historically or socially, has a fetus been considered to have fundamental human rights. Not even the 8th grants that as it does not recognise the unborn as a citizen just as 'alive'. Nor does the State recognise a fetus as a 'person' and as such does not extend the same rights as it does to a born child - hence no child benefit.

Because it is inside another person and can't benefit or vindicate its rights until after it is born.

Charmeleon

kylith wrote: »

Fundamental human rights are a human construct, guaranteed by the state. The universe, planet earth, or Nature does not give you a right to life. The universe doesn’t give a damn if you live or die.

Of course it's a construct, it's a barrier we put up between victims and people who would treat them like animals or objects. We call them fundemental because we understand there are no good arguments for allowing exceptions, only an opening for barbarity.

kylith

Charmeleon wrote: »

Because it is inside another person and can't benefit or vindicate its rights until after it is born.

So you agree that it can’t benefit from human rights until after it’s born

kylith

Charmeleon wrote: »

Of course it's a construct, it's a barrier we put up between victims and people who would treat them like animals or objects. We call them fundemental because we understand there are no good arguments for allowing exceptions, only an opening for barbarity.

But we, as a society, decide who they are extended to, an so far that is not foetuses

Charmeleon

kylith wrote: »

So you agree that it can’t benefit from human rights until after it’s born

Only in the same sense that an astronaut can’t vindicate their human rights while alone in a capsule in space. Just because you have no practical use for them under current conditions doesn’t disqualify you from bearing them.

Bannasidhe

Charmeleon wrote: »

Because it is inside another person and can't benefit or vindicate its rights until after it is born.

It is inside a person who has fundamental human rights and one of those rights should be to refuse to have their bodies used to host a fetus against their will!

And no, all those rights are not 'transferred' - if a pregnant woman is murdered it is not a double homicide. In Common Law jurisdictions there is a crime of 'Child Destruction' when the fetus would have been capable of living outside the womb - but these laws fall short of calling it homicide and were not enacted in the Irish Free State as they were first introduced to the UK and Northern Ireland in 1929.

Charmeleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is inside a person who has fundamental human rights and one of those rights should be to refuse to have their bodies used to host a fetus against their will!

And no, all those rights are not 'transferred' - if a pregnant woman is murdered it is not a double homicide. In Common Law jurisdictions there is a crime of 'Child Destruction' when the fetus would have been capable of living outside the womb - but these laws fall short of calling it homicide and were not enacted in the Irish Free State as they were first introduced to the UK and Northern Ireland in 1929.

Should a conjoined twin be able to kill the other? Surely they have a right not to host the other if they have the vital organs?

ohnonotgmail

Charmeleon wrote: »

Should a conjoined twin be able to kill the other? Surely they have a right not to host the other if they have the vital organs?

Is that how you consider conjoined twins? as one hosting the other?

Bannasidhe

Charmeleon wrote: »

Should a conjoined twin be able to kill the other? Surely they have a right not to host the other if they have the vital organs?

There is a fundamental difference between 'sharing' and 'hosting' that seems to have escaped you.

Conjoined twins may, or may not, share some vital organs.

A fetus does not share any vital organs with the woman carrying it (although in the case of ectopic pregnancies it may be lodged in an organ where it cannot survive). A fetus, by means of a tube, siphons nutrients from the woman's body. It cannot survive without the woman. The woman can survive without it. They are not in any sense of the word conjoined.

You really need to start researching your statements before you make them.

amdublin

JDD wrote: »

I guess I must be an outlier a bit in my beliefs

I believe a foetus is human. I think these arguments are useless actually. I don't believe it has a soul as I'm not religious. I don't think any human has any automatic right to anything, except for the rules we as a society impose in order to ensure it doesn't all dissolve into anarchy.

Lets put the actual procreation aspect of it aside for moment. I think it would be completely immoral (not to say illegal) to create an embryo in a laboratory and then forceably implant it into someone and make them carry it to term. I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference that the embryo is a human. We accept all sorts of circumstances within our society where a human life is ended (self defence, war, the Pill, embryos in IVF clinics, etc). It's the equivalent of grevious bodily harm.

I still believe that a lot of motivation for holding a pro-life view is because of that bit at the start, the procreation bit. Because a woman engaged in the act of sex while knowing there's a small chance that their contraception could fail, that is excuse enough to say that the grevious bodily harm is warranted. And that stems from the archaic notion that the woman is responsible for upholding the moral stance that sex should not occur outside of solely wanted to procreate. A sort of "sure isn't it good enough for her, she shouldn't have been shagging around in the first place". Nowhere do you see this more than when people say they're in favour of repeal but only in cases of FFA (the foetus won't survive anyway) or rape (well sure she wasn't shagging around so she held up her moral side of the bargain, and god I'd look like an awful ****e if I made her stay pregnant after being raped).

Let me set out my stall here. I've had three kids, all C-sections. The three pregnancies and three surgical procedures have given me various health problems. My last pregnancy I had suspected placenta accretia, a very serious pregnancy complication. If I got pregnant again, I would have a 60-80% chance of actually having it. This may result in nothing more than a few blood transfusions at birth, or I may have permanent damage to my cervix, bladder, and surrounding organs, or (and it's difficult to find recent stats on this) there is a 7% maternal mortality rate.

I've got my tubes tied so I don't get pregnant again. But since my third pregnancy occurred even though I religiously (no pun intended) took the Pill, I can't be completely sure that I won't be one of the 0.1% who get pregnant after tubal ligation.

If I get pregnant again I'll be ordering the termination pill online before the 12 week mark. I can't take that sort of chance that my kids will be left without a mother. Nor do I want to take the chance that I'll be permanently incapacitated. It's not fair on me, and it's not fair on my children. I should be able to take this choice, for me and for my family, with the support of my GP. But I'm left trusting directions on a website and possibly having to turn up at St. Vincents A&E if something goes wrong. Under current legislation, I could be imprisoned. It's just a nonsensical situation.

So that's why I'm voting repeal. And I'll be trying to convince everyone I know to do the same.

A serious considered decision from a mother. And a Real picture of life/maternity care - and maternity risks under the 8th amendment

I guess from my perspective, nobody wants to have to think about the what ifs/nobody wants to have to take pills and have an abortion but sometimes it's the best, if not the only, option.

uptherebels

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yes it can. If a child stumbles on a cliff edge and is hanging over the edge, the state requires you to pull him up before he falls. You can't just sit back and continue eating your ice cream while he's screaming for your help.

They are called "Duty To Rescue" laws. You can't claim bodily autonomy and just do nothing.

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue )

Now I'm open to correction but I believe Ireland doesn't have a duty to rescue law

Zubeneschamali

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.

Have you read the reports of the Citizen's Assembly and the Oireachteas Committee? Because they concluded that the only way to have abortion for rape and incest cases is to have unrestricted abortion.

If you can imagine some method for ensuring that only genuine rape cases get access, I'm sure everyone would be interested to hear it.

And of course, technically abortion is illegal in England except for "medical cases", and we all know how that worked out.

Candamir

Charmeleon wrote: »

Because it is inside another person and can't benefit or vindicate its rights until after it is born.

Of course it can.
If you believe a foetus/embryo has such rights then you are in favour of criminalising pregnant women who take drugs during pregnancy. Or smokes. Or drinks. Or eats unpasteurised cheese or undercooked eggs. All of these things are potentially or definitely harmful to the foetus, yet we don’t vindicate the unborns right not to be harmed, greviously or otherwise, due to the actions (or inactions - failure to take folic acid prior to conception and in early pregnancy for example) of the woman.

Bannasidhe

JDD wrote: »

We accept all sorts of circumstances within our society where a human life is ended

This, I think, is an important point.
If a person is truly pro-life and believes it is morally wrong to take a human life than that should surely be without qualification. No 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts'.

Logically extending this, it shouldn't matter where that life is ended. Geography shouldn't be a factor if wrong is wrong is wrong.

A committed pro-life person should oppose abortion in all circumstances but equally they should just a vehemently oppose the taking of the lives of the born. They should be pacifists. They should oppose the right to travel. They should oppose military flights entering Irish airspace. They should refuse to have their taxes used for the military.

Equally, since they want to save lives from being what they consider prematurely ended than shouldn't they in favour of refugees in danger of drowning, for example, being immediately picked up and brought to safely regardless of cost?
Insisting that those refugees be housed in suitable accommodation, given medical treatment, and properly fed?
Screaming and roaring about people being denied life saving medication due to cost?
Working to end Capital punishment...?

And that's just the times when life is deliberately being cut short due to someone somewhere making a decision.

Now, I would respect such a person, while also disagreeing with them on one key issue, because they are carrying their beliefs though to all aspects of the human existence not just fixated on one issue and ignoring all the other times human life is wilfully ended.

But to be honest - I am not seeing these people in the largely conservative pro-life movement. I am seeing them in the pro-choice movement and they are often dismissed by those conservatives as 'crusties' and 'loony lefties' etc.

jimmycrackcorm

Bannasidhe wrote:

This, I think is an important point. If a person is truly pro-life and believes it is morally wrong to take a human life than that should surely be without qualification. No 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts'.

But why should it be without qualification? Why so black and white?

In hospitals is very common to have a do not resusitate instruction for a patient near end of life, or even to stop trying to provide treatment that would only effect a poor quality of life for a short period.

I doubt anyone who is truly pro life could actually say that there aren't circumstances where a death is an inevitable choice, whether it's a 9 week fetus or pulling the plug on a terminal 90 year old.

Bannasidhe

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But why should it be without qualification? Why so black and white?

In hospitals is very common to have a do not resusitate instruction for a patient near end of life, or even to stop trying to provide treatment that would only effect a poor quality of life for a short period.

I doubt anyone who is truly pro life could actually say that there aren't circumstances where a death is an inevitable choice, whether it's a 9 week fetus or pulling the plug on a terminal 90 year old.

We have been treated to a barrage of posts about 'human life' and why it is morally wrong to take it. But then we get the caveats. If this human life exists because of rape or incest it's ok - why? Why is it ok to end that 'life' but not the accidental 'life'?


Why is choice inevitable in some circumstances but murder in others?

It's either morally wrong or it isn't. That is black and white.

amdublin

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I doubt anyone who is truly pro life could actually say that there aren't circumstances where a death is an inevitable choice, whether it's a 9 week fetus or pulling the plug on a terminal 90 year old.

Is that not the point though? They seem to be arbitrarily able to draw lines of what they are are ok with or what they are not ok with. And in my opinion they seem to be obsessed with stopping abortions but not caring much about the other lives as outlined in bannsidhes post.

Sigh. It really feels like an intrusion on my sex life and my reproductive organs.
In the 1970s it was all about whether I could or couldn't use contraception. And now it's all about abortion and my maternity care choices.
I wish they would stay out of my bedroom and body to be honest

Andrew Beef

kylith wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.

Allowing it in rape cases raises difficulties. Do you wait for conviction? That can take years. Would it require just a Garda report? The rate of false reporting would skyrocket. Do you take the woman’s word that she was raped and allow it without formal reporting? What’s the difference between that and allowing it on request?

The time-lag is the greatest challenge in terms of rape cases; by the time the case has been proven, the baby has been born.

It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.

NuMarvel

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I presume you mean except for our constitution?

Not even in our constitution unless you can cite the Article that's the direct equivalent of the 13th Amendment for someone who is born.

kylith

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The time-lag is the greatest challenge in terms of rape cases; by the time the case has been proven, the baby has been born.

It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.

So it would come down to a panel deciding whether a woman was lying or not before it ever went to trial? You don't think that that would prejudice the trial in any way, no? How would the Rape Committee come to this conclusion? Do you think that this would lead to fewer women reporting rapes as they would have to attend a hearing on whether she was a liar before it even went to court or any charges were made? Are Gardai, GPs and psychologists infallible in telling whether or not someone is lying?

seamus

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The time-lag is the greatest challenge in terms of rape cases; by the time the case has been proven, the baby has been born.

It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.

I think you're understating the primary issue there;

You're aiming to prevent women from lying about rape to get an abortion. So from your point of view it's a good thing that this committee might prevent such a thing.

What you're forgetting is the reason why we want to allow abortion in the case of rape in the first place. And these committees will undoubtedly force some women to have to carry their rapist's baby to term. Which makes the entire endeavour pointless - rather than face the indignity of 3 strangers deciding whether or not they were raped, women will just do what they do now - go overseas or take some pills.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Andrew Beef

kylith wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The time-lag is the greatest challenge in terms of rape cases; by the time the case has been proven, the baby has been born.

It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.

So it would come down to a panel deciding whether a woman was lying or not before it ever went to trial? You don't think that that would prejudice the trial in any way, no? How would the Rape Committee come to this conclusion? Do you think that this would lead to fewer women reporting rapes as they would have to attend a hearing on whether she was a liar before it even went to court or any charges were made? Are Gardai, GPs and psychologists infallible in telling whether or not someone is lying?

You don’t appear to have read my post at all. The “Rape Committee” process is independent of an ordinary trial and cannot be referenced at any subsequent criminal trial.

Zubeneschamali

Andrew Beef wrote: »

It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.

Role play it with me. You are the entire committee, I am the woman's dad.

Before the hearing, I tell her to say she had a few drinks, went to a party, doesn't recall where it was, got raped by a guy she didn't know in a dark room, and made her way home alone. She remembers no other details.

OK, go.

Call me Al

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The time-lag is the greatest challenge in terms of rape cases; by the time the case has been proven, the baby has been born.

It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.

This essentially becomes a rape trial with the woman in the dock by virtue of the fact that a panel has to decide whether shd is telling a sufficiently plausible version of events or not. The woman may not want to formally accuse her attacker. That should be her choice.
I think the idea of such a "panel", judge and jury on whether or not they believe she's telling the truth, is appalling.