The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

CeilingFly

I was doorstepped by a "no" advocate yesterday. He was a little excited and played the "did you know that 90% of babies with a disability are aborted in the UK line"

I said his figures are factually incorrect and that it was substantially lower. He wasn't accepting that, and went on a rant about health and housing as well - so I threw a curveball that had him reeling...

..."The average disabled person costs the taxpayer in excess of €20m* throughout their lifetime, so if 90% of disabled babies were aborted, that would see billions saved and allow for substantially extra funding for health and housing - hence if YOU voted yes, you'd be ensuring massive additional funding for housing and health"

He threw a few expletives at me and walked on.





1. *the €20m is made up.

2. The above is not an argument I'd ever use, and its as insulting and degrading as the no side's argument saying that 90% of babies with a disability are aborted. But they don't seem to like anyone giving a similarly but opposite disgusting argument.



Even my mother who would have been very much against abortion has decided not to vote as she cannot vote for groups that use such emotive and wrong statements. She won't vote yes for her own personal reasons and you may have many of the older generation doing similar when they hear the hatred of these hardline groups.

Ush1

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Am I ending someone's life because I'm not a blood door? A bone marrow door? A kidney door?

Real live humans die because I don't donate my organs, am I killing them? Do they sign the consent form for the removal of my organs?

No, because that's a patently ridiculous idea.

Consent only comes into it when a body is capable of being autonomous. The woman can consent to her womb being inhabited by a baby or she can withdraw that consent.

I see your point but it's slightly different from a moral relativity point of view.

In the donor scenario, the person dies if you do nothing.
In the abortion one, the child will be born if you do nothing. So the abortion involves intervening.

ohnonotgmail

horseburger wrote: »

What do you think it is - considering it has been created as a result of the union of a human egg and human sperm - if you think it isn't human?

It is human but it is a not A human. the difference is key. In the case of a pregnant woman you have somebody that is a human and something that is not yet a human growing inside her. the rights of the woman far exceed the rights of the ovum/embryo/foetus growing inside her.

horseburger

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

How would you propose getting a fetus' consent?

That's the issue, in abortion, the human foetus is being killed at its most defenseless state of its human existence.

The human foetus has no ability to ensure protection, if someone else decides to end the life of that human foetus.

Trasna1

CeilingFly wrote: »

I was doorstepped by a "no" advocate yesterday. He was a little excited and played the "did you know that 90% of babies with a disability are aborted in the UK line"

I said his figures are factually incorrect and that it was substantially lower. He wasn't accepting that, and went on a rant about health and housing as well - so I threw a curveball that had him reeling...

..."The average disabled person costs the taxpayer in excess of €20m* throughout their lifetime, so if 90% of disabled babies were aborted, that would see billions saved and allow for substantially extra funding for health and housing - hence if YOU voted yes, you'd be ensuring massive additional funding for housing and health"

He threw a few expletives at me and walked on.





1. *the €20m is made up.

2. The above is not an argument I'd ever use, and its as insulting and degrading as the no side's argument saying that 90% of babies with a disability are aborted. But they don't seem to like anyone giving a similarly but opposite disgusting argument.



Even my mother who would have been very much against abortion has decided not to vote as she cannot vote for groups that use such emotive and wrong statements. She won't vote yes for her own personal reasons and you may have many of the older generation doing similar when they hear the hatred of these hardline groups.

It's not an argument you'd ever use, but you did use it?

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

Poor attempt at avoiding the issue.

You are using vague language to try and say something, but I cannot tell what it is.

I'll guess that you think an angel gives a blastocyst a tiny soul when the parents DNA combines at fertilization?

NuMarvel

horseburger wrote: »

Anyone who opposes the idea of abortion is not happy with it taking plave anywhere else, so I don't think it can be argued that they are happy for the procedure to be available abroad.

We had a referendum on pretty much this point 25 years ago, which passed by a two to one margin, and which put the freedom to travel over and above the unborn's rights in ALL cases. And in the time since, not a single pro life campaigner or politician, even those who campaigned for a No vote in that referendum, has called for that to be overturned. And when you ask posters here about it, most refuse to talk about it in any detail.

I can't say whether people are happy about it, but I can certainly say they're not overly concerned about it.

So if we've already said it's okay for women to have abortions elsewhere, and no one has expressed any desire to change that, what good reason exists for saying women can't have abortions here, where they will be earlier and safer?

ELM327

horseburger wrote: »

What do you think it is - considering it has been created as a result of the union of a human egg and human sperm - if you think it isn't human?

It is human, but not a human.

It's human DNA. But if I sneeze unhygenically and a piece of mucus lands on your jumper, that is also human DNA. Should that be preserved at all costs (including your life) too?

Zubeneschamali

Ush1 wrote: »

In the donor scenario, the person dies if you do nothing.
In the abortion one, the child will be born if you do nothing. So the abortion involves intervening.

I can hear the old Catholic upbringing in there somewhere.

horseburger

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is human but it is a not A human. the difference is key. In the case of a pregnant woman you have somebody that is a human and something that is not yet a human growing inside her. the rights of the woman far exceed the rights of the ovum/embryo/foetus growing inside her.

Humans are dependent on others after birth as well. Humans are dependent on others for many years after birth.

I haven't heard anyone argue that the life of a born human should be deliberately ended, on the basis that children are dependent on others for many years after birth.

Bríd Smith People Before Profit TD made a very poor argument on this issue last July, in a debate with Maria Steen and Caroline Simons, with Vincent Browne, at the 18 minute mark in the video below.

I was surprised how poorly Bríd Smith argued her reasoning on this issue.

Ush1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I can hear the old Catholic upbringing in there somewhere.

It's nothing to do with upbringing, it's a patently different scenario.

Is watching someone drown in water, the same as stepping on their head while they're drowning?

Annasopra

amdublin wrote: »

Reading something on fb plus thinking about the video I watched yesterday about how the 8th was brought in got me thinking.

Before contraception was brought in we were told it was bad (by the church). Is it though??
And since contraception was legalised gas the sky fallen down? Has society fallen apart?
No it has not.

My convent education advocated that sex was only for "within the framework of marriage". I'll never forget that wording! And that sex outside out of marriage was bad. That left me with a 20 year history of dealing with guilt after sex and not enjoyable sex during. I have finally come to the realisation that sex is a good thing. We as human beings need human touch and need human feel good sensations. Sex is good for your physical and mental well being.
Since sex outside of marriage has become the norm has the sky fallen down? Has society fallen apart?
No.

Divorce.
Hello divorce goodbye daddy said the church. Putting the fear of god (literally) in me as a child.
Since divorce is in has the sky fallen down? Is everyone getting divorced?
No.
Actually ireland has a low divorce rate.

Same sex marriage
Threatens marriage. Threatens family. A child needs a mother and father. Said the naysayers years later has the sky fallen down?
No.

Abortion in Ireland rather than England
Abortion safely under medical care rather than in bedrooms in secret.
Will society change?
No.

We cannot live under fear any more or believe, what frankly are, lies. We are good humans. We deserve human rights.

Repeal the 8th

The same people who fought contraception now say - use contraception. Deep irony there.

SusieBlue

horseburger wrote: »

The central question obviously is the argument on whether it is acceptable to end a human life, where that human, whose life is being ended, has not given consent to end that life.

In cases of euthanasia, the person dying gives consent.

Do we seek the consent or opinion of the unborn on any other matter? Vaginal birth or c-section? Breast or bottle?
How do you propose we obtain such consent?

I'll give you a hint. Its because the unborn are not a born citizen. The woman in the scenario, is a born citizen.
And her needs, wants, and wishes should always trump that of a >12 week old fetus unless she CHOOSES otherwise.

Zubeneschamali

Ush1 wrote: »

It's nothing to do with upbringing, it's a patently different scenario.

Nuns or brothers?

PopePalpatine

DabllDoYa wrote: »

Someone in my local town put up a big board of pictures of dead fetuses' outside a primary school.
I mean come on lads you're not doing much to help your side.

I wish I had your optimism.

Ush1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nuns or brothers?

Neither!

Sure I've already said I'm likely voting yes, doesn't mean people from the yes side can come out with poor arguments.

Zubeneschamali

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The same people who fought contraception now say - use contraception. Deep irony there.

I remember Iona opposing civil partnerships for gays, losing that one, and then saying same sex marriage was not needed because gays have those fine Civil Partnerships.

Yeah, no thanks to you lot.

Each time they lose, they fall back to the next trench and hope the trench they just abandoned impedes their enemies progress.

Hannibal_Smith

horseburger wrote: »

That's the issue, in abortion, the human foetus is being killed at its most defenseless state of its human existence.

The human foetus has no ability to ensure protection, if someone else decides to end the life of that human foetus.

The human feotus doesn't even know it has a human existence. It doesn't even know what protection is. If the mother doesn't want to carry it...until you can create an incubator that can take her place...what should happen?

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

But a foetus is a living human being. If not aborted it will grow and develop as part of its human life cycle, prior to birth and after birth.

Firstly it is only a living human being in terms of taxonomy. In the context of abortion we are talking about rights and morality. These things are generally applied to "person-hood" not biology.

Secondly you do not know "it will grow" at all. A significant portion of pregnancies terminate themselves by 12 weeks gestation. So do not talk about what "will" happen when you are applying nothing but mere guess work.

horseburger wrote: »

No matter what stage his or her life is ended, there is no avoiding the fact that abortion is the deliberate ending of human life.

And burgers are deliberately ending a cows life. And paper is ending a trees life. And vegetables require us to end the lives of insects in the 1000s. Our medical industry ends bacterial life in the billions. We end life all the time. So what is your point?

horseburger wrote: »

expressing concern about the way the word foetus is regularly used as a replacement of other words, that give recognition to the humanity of the life that is ended when aborted is carried out.

Then she has it entirely backwards I am afraid. It is other words that are often put as replacement to the word fetus. What other people then do is correctly REAPPLY fetus to places where it actually applies.

The issue being that people willfully misuse words in order to "give recognition to humanity" before it is actually due or warranted. Calling a spade a spade when someone else is calling it a spoon is not replacing their words. It is stopping them replacing ours.

So rather than moan about people using the word fetus to describe something that is ACTUALLY a fetus.... ask yourself why the people against abortion are AGAINST using that word.

horseburger wrote: »

The central question about abortion is whether it is right or wrong to deliberately end a human life.

I would say the central question about abortion is one of rights, and when in the human life cycle process a human can and should attain them.

Thus far I have yet to see anyone put forward an argument that coherently explains why they thing a 12 week old fetus should have any rights, or deserve any of our moral and ethical concern.

They just should "Human" at the issue as if that does the job for them. And then, quite often, run away.

horseburger wrote: »

In cases of euthanasia, the person dying gives consent.

Yes. Exactly. The PERSON. Not the "Human". The PERSON does this.

Pointing out that the fetus is biologically HUMAN as you keep doing is therefore to miss the point. It is not biological humanity that mediates moral and rights issues. It is personhood.

Which the fetus lacks. Entirely.

You are leaping from biological facts to philosophical conclusions and not bothering to even build a bridge between the two.

Anne1982h

So in what has rendered me completely SPEECHLESS a thread (which can’t be posted on for some reason) saying ‘ my reasons for saving the 8th’ a poster said they will be voting to save the 8th BUT and I quote ‘ if my life was at risk I would travel for an abortion as I have two kids to raise, simple as’.

So there are actually people out there who will travel for an abortion if they need one but won’t vote repeal as sure sod all those mothers who can’t afford to travel and the kids they have to raise...

Jesus H Christ!!!!!!!

Yer Da sells Avon

Anne1982h wrote: »

So in what has rendered me completely SPEECHLESS a thread (which can’t be posted on for some reason) saying ‘ my reasons for saving the 8th’ a poster said they will be voting to save the 8th BUT and I quote ‘ if my life was at risk I would travel for an abortion as I have two kids to raise, simple as’.

So there are actually people out there who will travel for an abortion if they need one but won’t vote repeal as sure sod all those mothers who can’t afford to travel and the kids they have to raise...

Jesus H Christ!!!!!!!

And she got a whole load of thanks for that post too, which suggests that her fellow No voters either didn't read the post properly or share her lack of critical thinking skills.

Zubeneschamali

Anne1982h wrote: »

So there are actually people out there who will travel for an abortion if they need one but won’t vote repeal as sure sod all those mothers who can’t afford to travel and the kids they have to raise...

Well yes, but we know this. How many "pro-life" posters have come into this thread and said they are OK with travel to the UK? I don't think a single one has ever said they were opposed to the 13th amendment and would like it repealed, not one.

Votes for the 8th in 1983: 1,265,994
Votes for the 13th in 1993: 1,733,821

Some of these had to be the same people. I have never seen anyone admit to being one of the 600,000+ who voted against the 13th.

Anne1982h

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

And she got a whole load of thanks for that post too, which suggests that her fellow No voters either didn't read the post properly or share her lack of critical thinking skills.

Well I suppose it’s because it’s a win-win. Obviously people with the money and means to access abortion if they need it so their lives won’t be put as risk but then voting to retain the 8th means they can feel good about voting against abortion and sure sod everyone else - they’ll have to just get on with it. Who cares about their lives or the kids they have to raise sure!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

horseburger

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The people who have a fundamental difficulty with abortion, are not happy with abortions taking place anywhere.

I think they fundamentally have a problem with abortion being the deliberate ending of human life.

In what other circumstances is it argued by anyone can take someone else's life, where the person being killed, has not consented to their life being deliberately ended?

NuMarvel

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We not only don't have a problem with it, we've gone so far as to say in our constitution that the unborn's rights can't impede on the freedom to travel elsewhere for an abortion!

I can't imagine any other circumstance where the people would vote to protect the freedom to travel to carry out an act that's a crime here. I can't even think of one where such a referendum would be suggested.

ohnonotgmail

horseburger wrote: »

The people who have a fundamental difficulty with abortion, are not happy with abortions taking place anywhere.

I think they fundamentally have a problem with abortion being the deliberate ending of human life.

In what other circumstances is it argued by anyone can take someone else's life, where the person being killed, has not consented to their life being deliberately ended?

an embryo or a foetus is not a person.

Yeah_Right

horseburger wrote: »

The people who have a fundamental difficulty with abortion, are not happy with abortions taking place anywhere.

I think they fundamentally have a problem with abortion being the deliberate ending of human life.

In what other circumstances is it argued by anyone can take someone else's life, where the person being killed, has not consented to their life being deliberately ended?

Mate read the post by Nozz. Its a few before your's. You might learn something.
He (she?) counters all your arguments quite eloquently. In fact some might say you get schooled

Anne1982h

horseburger wrote: »

The people who have a fundamental difficulty with abortion, are not happy with abortions taking place anywhere.

I think they fundamentally have a problem with abortion being the deliberate ending of human life.

In what other circumstances is it argued by anyone can take someone else's life, where the person being killed, has not consented to their life being deliberately ended?

They must not have a fundamental problem with abortion being the be deliberate ending of a human life if they are willing to have an abortion themselves. If that was the case then those such as the poster of that thread should be saying I would be willing to die and leave my children without a mother rather than have an abortion or in any way harm the unborn. I cannot in any circumstances deliberately end a human life.

I think the majority of people have a problem with abortion - I know I do - but recognize that it is necessary to have one in alot more circumstances than you would think. Which is why I’m voting to repeal. If I needed an abortion (and I hope to never be in that position) I could travel for one as I have the means and money to do so but I know that lots of women wouldn’t have this option and I don’t think they should be denied the same options I have to do what is best for them.

horseburger

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Firstly it is only a living human being in terms of taxonomy. In the context of abortion we are talking about rights and morality. These things are generally applied to "person-hood" not biology.

Secondly you do not know "it will grow" at all. A significant portion of pregnancies terminate themselves by 12 weeks gestation. So do not talk about what "will" happen when you are applying nothing but mere guess work.



And burgers are deliberately ending a cows life. And paper is ending a trees life. And vegetables require us to end the lives of insects in the 1000s. Our medical industry ends bacterial life in the billions. We end life all the time. So what is your point?



Then she has it entirely backwards I am afraid. It is other words that are often put as replacement to the word fetus. What other people then do is correctly REAPPLY fetus to places where it actually applies.

The issue being that people willfully misuse words in order to "give recognition to humanity" before it is actually due or warranted. Calling a spade a spade when someone else is calling it a spoon is not replacing their words. It is stopping them replacing ours.

So rather than moan about people using the word fetus to describe something that is ACTUALLY a fetus.... ask yourself why the people against abortion are AGAINST using that word.



I would say the central question about abortion is one of rights, and when in the human life cycle process a human can and should attain them.

Thus far I have yet to see anyone put forward an argument that coherently explains why they thing a 12 week old fetus should have any rights, or deserve any of our moral and ethical concern.

They just should "Human" at the issue as if that does the job for them. And then, quite often, run away.



Yes. Exactly. The PERSON. Not the "Human". The PERSON does this.

Pointing out that the fetus is biologically HUMAN as you keep doing is therefore to miss the point. It is not biological humanity that mediates moral and rights issues. It is personhood.

Which the fetus lacks. Entirely.

You are leaping from biological facts to philosophical conclusions and not bothering to even build a bridge between the two.

Any confirmed pregnancy, involving an unborn human being, created as a result of a male human sperm and female human egg, is human, is it not?

What else would an unborn human being do, other than grow and develop in the womb, if the pregnancy continues?

The debate about abortion, centres around the question on whether is right or wrong to deliberately end human life.

Using trees to make newspapers does nothing to address the question of the justification to end an unborn human life.

What circumstances are you referencing when you argue that life is ended all the time.

Isn't it the case, that with abortion without restriction, that there will be circumstances where the life being ended, has a healthy life to look forward to, after birth, if the pregnancy continues.

As opposed to a very ill person receiving medication to alleviate pain and suffering, in cases of terminal illness, where no medication can cure that person of terminal illness.