The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

.......

This post has been deleted.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

Perhaps Blanch.

There is knock on off placing the responsibility of legislation on public representatives though, in the sense that they very often vote with regard to their political career and not the issue being voted on.

For example Regina Doherty recently saying, that in 2014 she was ignorant of the issues regarding abortion in Ireland.

But she said that the time that she really believed what she had said.

She pretty much made a dismissive comment saying 'women who don't want to get preggers have contraceptives available to them so they should stop whinging'.

In the Irish Times item from 2014, Mary Minihan wrote:

"Speaking to radio station LMFM, Ms Doherty said she understood why political leaders were reluctant to act and said clear legislation would have to replace article 40.3.3 if it was removed. “I’m not sure that the current situation does satisfy anybody. It certainly doesn’t satisfy the pro-choice people, and that’s not a movement that I would be in sync with,” she said.
“Not everybody lives in the black or the white of pro-life or pro-choice ideologies, because there are lots of situations in the middle of the grey areas that when those situations visit people’s houses then they have to make very difficult decisions.”".

"Contraceptives"

Ms Doherty said she also disagreed with the pro-choice view that women in Ireland did not have determination over their own bodies.

“I genuinely and firmly believe that women already have the determination over their own bodies and that’s called contraceptives, so make the decisions before you find yourself in a position where you’re using an abortion as a form of a contraceptive afterwards.”".


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fine-gael-td-backs-colleague-s-call-for-abortion-referendum-1.1912286

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/repeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Frepeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112

you said yourself earlier that you've only been looking into this the last few months, but it's not ok for someone in the public eye to read on something and perhaps alter their opinion on it?
I've heard plenty of people say they used to consider themselves pro life but after xyz they reevaluated their beliefs and now find them firmly in the pro choice camp

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

What's your answer to that scenario?

well, hows about i asked you first?

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

Indeed they have. please scroll back a few pages.

No they haven't, most people agreed it was human, but not a human being. It was you who had trouble with the semantics.

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

Enough of the vagueness, either you're pro-life or pro-choice HB, this has gone on far too long and you've been running in circles. Either out yourself or continue with your posting style until eventually the mask will slip and you'll out yourself down the line.

For someone who's apparently on the fence, you've posted nothing but pro-life material and when pushed on reasons to repeal you gave one.

Wrong.

I include items by Donal Lynch, in the Sunday Independent and on TV, who I suggested is making far more persuasive arguments for repeal, than the posters in this thread.

horseburger

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

No they haven't, most people agreed it was human, but not a human being. It was you who had trouble with the semantics.

Is it not the human bit that is important, not that it is human foetus or human being.

It is human at either stage, is it not?

v638sg7k1a92bx

Genuine questions. What is the status quo if the mothers life is in danger during the term of the pregnancy or during childbirth?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

Is it not the human bit that is important, not that it is human foetus or human being.

It is human at either stage, is it not?

yes, nobody posited that it wasn't

Timberrrrrrrr

horseburger wrote: »

Is it not the human bit that is important, not that it is human foetus or human being.

It is human at either stage, is it not?

I have a mole on my rear end.....guess what HB.....its not a human being but it IS human DNA.

Do you get it now or do I need to get the crayons out and draw you a picture?

horseburger

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

more like horse shi*e than horse burger me thinks

that was rather humorous but if you are going to use vulgar language try typing the word in such a way to avoid being censored:

for example:

sh-ite

horseburger

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have a mole on my rear end.....guess what HB.....its not a human being but it IS human DNA.

Do you get it now or do I need to get the crayons out and draw you a picture?

That sounds rather splendid, please do.

How big will your mole grow and develop if you don't detach it from your ass?

ohnonotgmail

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Genuine questions. What is the status quo if the mothers life is in danger during the term of the pregnancy or during childbirth?

it is my understanding that if the womans life is in danger then an abortion is allowed. HOWEVER by that point it may be too late to actually do anything that helps the woman. so if a woman is deteriorating the doctors can do nothing but wait until such as a time as her life is at risk.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger, what's your opinion on the 8th amendment and how it impacts women, as opposed to your opinion on abortion?

gctest50

this lad tearing down posters and assaulting the camera guy who was giving him a chance to air his views

Interesting it's a poster without graphic medical pictures

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

Wrong.

I include items by Donal Lynch, in the Sunday Independent and on TV, who I suggested is making far more persuasive arguments for repeal, than the posters in this thread.

Sorry, I've been corrected, you've posted bits from Donal Lynch who says pretty much the same as posters in this thread.

I see you've avoided the question again, are you pro-life or are you on the fence? I'll correct my statement, your posts have a high pro-life content, with very few pro-choice statements, etc, being offered.

horseburger

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

yes, nobody posited that it wasn't

Well then that brings us back round to the fundamental question as to when it is ok for one human person to decide to end the life of another human who hasn't given consent for their life to be ended, and would otherwise continue growth and development.

gctest50

gctest50 wrote: »

this lad tearing down posters and assaulting the camera guy who was giving him a chance to air his views

should get a fine for littering!!!

NuMarvel

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Genuine questions. What is the status quo if the mothers life is in danger during the term of the pregnancy or during childbirth?

Current legislation says an abortion can be carried out if the following criteria are met:

A - 2* doctors agree that there is a real and substantial risk of loss of life, and
B - That risk can only be averted by an abortion.

*2 doctors for when it's a physical illness, 3 doctors when it's a risk from suicide, 1 doctor when it's an emergency situation.

In practice that means abortions won't carried out after viability, because delivery is another means to avert the risk to life.

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

Sorry, I've been corrected, you've posted bits from Donal Lynch who says pretty much the same as posters in this thread.

I see you've avoided the question again, are you pro-life or are you on the fence? I'll correct my statement, your posts have a high pro-life content, with very few pro-choice statements, etc, being offered.

He does and I'd be more inclined to listen to him, because it is him who is stating that repeal campaigners are denying the humanity of what is being aborted.

If you are so sure that humanity isn't being denied by repeal advocates, why isn't he?

SusieBlue

horseburger wrote: »

Well then that brings us back round to the fundamental question as to when it is ok for one human person to decide to end the life of another human who hasn't given consent for their life to be ended, and would otherwise continue growth and development.

Back to this I see. How do you propose we obtain said consent, if the lack of consent is the issue?

Also, what are your thoughts on the fact that women are denied the opportunity to consent (or withhold consent) while pregnant?
Do you think its acceptable for this to happen to living citizens?

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

Well then that brings us back round to the fundamental question as to when it is ok for one human person to decide to end the life of another human who hasn't given consent for their life to be ended, and would otherwise continue growth and development.

they do not actually have a life until birth.
also, they may continue & grow, they may not, nothing for sure.

dudara

horseburger wrote: »

"Contraceptives"

Ms Doherty said she also disagreed with the pro-choice view that women in Ireland did not have determination over their own bodies.

“I genuinely and firmly believe that women already have the determination over their own bodies and that’s called contraceptives, so make the decisions before you find yourself in a position where you’re using an abortion as a form of a contraceptive afterwards.”".

I really hate this this judgemental and holier-than-thou position. Contraceptives don't 100% prevent pregnancy and this kind of statement implies that women who fall pregnant should suffer the consequences. It's a position that lacks understanding of the realities and that lacks humanity.

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

He does and I'd be more inclined to listen to him, because it is him who is stating that repeal campaigners are denying the humanity of what is being aborted.

If you are so sure that humanity is being denied by repeal advocates, why isn't he?

Are you pro-life or on the fence? You seem to be really avoiding that question.

horseburger

bubblypop wrote: »

they do not actually have a life until birth.
also, they may continue & grow, they may not, nothing for sure.

Not living until the split second their born?

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

Are you pro-life or on the fence? You seem to be really avoiding that question.

Why do you want to know? It's not like you give a fu-ck.

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

Why do you want to know? It's not like you give a fu-ck.

Why don't you want to tell? Is it because you came in here claiming to be on the fence, yet have been nothing but pro-life since that very post?

Nobody likes a liar, tut tut, nothing wrong with coming clean, it's just not many people will want to engage with someone who's got a hidden agenda.

horseburger

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In other words you can't answer what I asked you.

Running off crying to a moderator.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

Well then that brings us back round to the fundamental question as to when it is ok for one human person to decide to end the life of another human who hasn't given consent for their life to be ended, and would otherwise continue growth and development.

ignoring the fact that a foetus is human but not ahuman :rolleyes:

when is it ok for the rights of human matter (which has the potential to become a human being) which is wholly dependent on it's host to interfere with the human rights afforded to the host/human being?

pitifulgod

horseburger wrote: »

Why do you want to know? It's not like you give a fu-ck.

Because you initially said you were but show no indication that you really are on the fence..