The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

NuMarvel

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to say? The right to travel???

7000 posts in this thread alone, and you think we're going to believe this is the first time you've heard about what the constitution says about the freedom to travel? Pull the other one.

v638sg7k1a92bx

bubblypop wrote: »

In our constitution we have enshrined the right of pregnant women to information about abortion & also the right to travel for abortion. So basically our hypocritical constitution says on one hand, the unborn has a right to life, but on the other, the women is entitlted by law to go and have an abortion somewhere else.
So basically our country has stated that so long as women go somewhere else for abortions then that's ok.

can show me something that is illegal in this country, where we have put into our constitution the right of our citizens to go somewhere else to do that thing?

The moral dilemma you worry about really doesn't come into it, those women you worry about so much, will have that abortion anyway, so you are doing anything to save any unborn & merely making a difficult situation far more difficult. For all women & men who need that abortion.

People are travelling to Amsterdam to take legalised drugs in that country therefore we should we should legalise drugs in Ireland???

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

People are travelling to Amsterdam to take legalised drugs in that country therefore we should we should legalise drugs in Ireland???

well actually yeah, but that's another debate!

baylah17

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The "life " you are talking about IS someone else's pregnancy.

And don't call me Shirley.

"someone else's pregnancy" excuse my ignorance but I've heard that term before, could you please explain what it means?

Back again with you
"Please explain" distractions
Yada yada
Pathetic

v638sg7k1a92bx

BarleySweets wrote: »

No.

And I replied to your previous post explaining why.

So you don't understand the fundamental crux of the Pro Life argument in that they see abortion as akin to taking a human life, but your response is that it's happening in other countries so what difference does it make???

swampgas

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

People are travelling to Amsterdam to take legalised drugs in that country therefore we should we should legalise drugs in Ireland???

How predictable. Straight from the manual.

A better comparison would be euthanasia. Illegal here and illegal to help someone travel or obtain.

baylah17

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

SusieBlue wrote: »

It will have no effect on those who are pro-life because abortion won't be forced on anyone.
They can continue to live their lives as normal with the added benefit of being able to consent/withhold consent while receiving maternity care.

If you're asking how to allay the concerns they have over OTHER PEOPLE'S pregnancies, I would advise them to stop worrying about the uterus's and sex lives of strangers and mind their own business.

Surely you acknowledge that people have concerns over the termination of a life rather than other people's pregnancies?

None of your business or anybody else's business what any woman chooses

Zubeneschamali

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

"someone else's pregnancy" excuse my ignorance but I've heard that term before, could you please explain what it means?

Certainly.

Sinéad Fia goes to the doctor and is told she's pregnant. That is someone else's pregnancy.

Later a test says there is a 33% chance that the pregnancy will result in a child who has cerebral palsy, bilateral blindness, total deafness and will require 24 hour care for his or her short life, with a 50% chance of death within a year and only a 10% chance they will live to age 5. That is someone else's pregnancy.

Sinéad and her doctor discuss options, and agree that the best course is to terminate the pregnancy. That is someone else's pregnancy.

Obviously Sinéad lives in England, since the 8th makes such terminations subject to 14 years in jail here for both Sinéad and her doctor. That is not someone else's pregnancy - that is your fault if you vote No.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

well actually yeah, but that's another debate!

What about FGM, that happens in otter countries should we legislate for that in Ireland also?
I fail to understand the argument that just because everybody else is doing it we should be doing it also.

BarleySweets

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

While true, it is clearly the case that the Government (if it survives that long) will bring in legislation allowing abortion up to 12 weeks without restriction if the 8th is repealed.

85% of those surveyed in the MRBI poll released today were aware of the 12 week proposal, and 81% are extremely unlikely to change their mind or absolutely never going to change their mind.

So all the 12 weeks and oh my god that's abortion on demand the public will never go for that and shirley you realize you are killing babies is just noise.

We know, we understand, we are voting Yes.

It’s still a conversation for another time. Totally irrelevant for this referendum.

(And when that conversation happens, I’ll be proudly against any 12 week limit because there’s no time limit on consent. Just like there’s no time limit on receiving information that can make a woman choose to have an abortion, we don’t want a situation where a woman gets bad news at 28, 32, 35 weeks and is then left with no options whatsoever because the legislature only considered 12 weeks as a valid time limit for consent.)

SusieBlue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

What about FGM, that happens in otter countries should we legislate for that in Ireland also?
I fail to understand the argument that just because everybody else is doing it we should be doing it also.

These arguments are all sounding very familiar, I’m sure I’ve heard them before....

swampgas

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

What about FGM, that happens in otter countries should we legislate for that in Ireland also?
I fail to understand the argument that just because everybody else is doing it we should be doing it also.

You understand only too well, I suspect.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Surely you acknowledge that people have concerns over the termination of a life rather than other people's pregnancies?

It is also useful to acknowledge that this is a shared concern for many. The idea that we want to reduce the number of abortions happening to as close to zero as possible is an ideal shared by BOTH pro and anti choice campaigners.

The difference is that the pro choice campaigners see no benefit, and sometimes even actual detriment, to trying to attain that goal in a non-choice based environment where choice based abortion is illegal.

Let us stop pretending we do not have shared goals and ideals here. We do. We just differ wildly about how and why we should go about attaining those ideals.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I fail to understand that logic, abortions are being carried out anyway so there is no point in being concerned about the life of an unborn child?

Two different issues that. There is some utility some of the time in conflating them but not here.

The first issue is the concern about ending the life of a fetus. I do not think those concerns valid myself as I see no coherent or substantive basis being offered by ANYONE on this thread as to why a 12/16 week old fetus should have rights, or be afforded moral and ethical concern.

The second issue, whether the ending of fetal life should be a concern or not, is abortion itself. It is a medical procedure not without risk and emotional and physical distress.... it is happening..... and often for the health of the pregnant women it is required. And if we want to address those medical concerns, and the abortion concerns, and the well being of women concerns, we have to question the utility of the NIMBY exportation of the problem to another jurisdiction.

The two issues overlap at times and it is useful to acknowledge that. But conflating them with the sole purpose of pretending there is a logic fail there is not going to help anyone, any agenda, or the well being of any woman.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I fail to understand the argument that just because everybody else is doing it we should be doing it also.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Death penalties are being administered in other countries so we should introduce the death penalty in Ireland?

Not a valid comparison. If however it was shown that the death penalty was A) required in ireland under a variety of circumstances and the requirement was being ignore but partially met by exporting it to another jurisdiction and C) exporting it in this fashion was causing real measurable detriment to the well being of our citizens.......... THEN you would have a useful comparison to make.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

But do you not accept the underlying moral dilemma for some people in that they believe abortion is akin to taking a life regardless of where it is happening?

I accept that dilemma exists, but you do not accept my counter statement that there is no basis for that dilemma other than subjective narrative that does not map usefully or coherently onto reality in any way.

In other words the fact people have those concerns is not in doubt. The basis of them, or the reasons to consider them at all valid, is. In isolation for a start, but even more so when taken in the context of the actual well being, freedoms, choices and options of a pregnant woman inside whom their concerns actually lie.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

People are travelling to Amsterdam to take legalised drugs in that country therefore we should we should legalise drugs in Ireland???

Well yes we should. But not solely for the reason you lay out here. We should do it because it is actually the right thing to do. But that is another debate, one several threads exist about already, but I am happy to discuss it with you in any new thread you start on the subject either.

It is still not a valid comparison but for a few reasons it is somewhat more comparable than the death penalty one. But only barely.

baylah17

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Seems like alot of people are talking past one another on this thread.

Once the right to the unborn has been removed from the constitution, how can that be dealt with to allay concerns that Pro Life people would have?

Why would we want to ally the concerns of these busybodies
It's none of their business
It never was any of their business
If they don't like the result let them campaign for a referendum on the right to stick their noses into other people's lives and dictate how others should live their private lives

amdublin

I really wish people (the pro birthers) would take their noses out of my bedroom and my uterus.

For years they were against contraception.
But now it's ok (ironically it's what they advocate now)

They were against same sex marriage.
Hey look the sky didn't fall down, the sanctity of family (in all its forms) is fine

Hello divorce bye bye daddy.
Our divorce rates haven't shot through the roof. And guess what people are happy with a divorce rather than staying unhappy in an unhappy marriage

I don't involve myself in your bedroom activities and force you to carry a baby in your uterus. So please don't force me.

No one wants an abortion. But sometimes you need one. We need that choice here in our own country instead of exporting it to the UK. Or having unsafe practices of bedroom abortions via pills.

For God's sake where is the humanity??

When this passes and we have choice it changes nothing for the pro brothers but so much for the women who are affected.

Get out of my bedroom

Trust women
Repeal the 8th

v638sg7k1a92bx

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Certainly.

Sinéad Fia goes to the doctor and is told she's pregnant. That is someone else's pregnancy.

Later a test says there is a 33% chance that the pregnancy will result in a child who has cerebral palsy, bilateral blindness, total deafness and will require 24 hour care for his or her short life, with a 50% chance of death within a year and only a 10% chance they will live to age 5. That is someone else's pregnancy.

Sinéad and her doctor discuss options, and agree that the best course is to terminate the pregnancy. That is someone else's pregnancy.

Obviously Sinéad lives in England, since the 8th makes such terminations subject to 14 years in jail here for both Sinéad and her doctor. That is not someone else's pregnancy - that is your fault if you vote No.

Again with the marginal cases to prove the broader argument. Would you be in favour of abortion if the baby was healthy?

uptherebels

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

People are travelling to Amsterdam to take legalised drugs in that country therefore we should we should legalise drugs in Ireland???

If they had constitutional protection to travel to take drugs then your analogy would be accurate.
I assume you are aware of its innacuracy but as with the many anti choicers before you ignore this in desperate attempt to cling to any arguement to try and legitimise their position

captbarnacles

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

What about FGM, that happens in otter countries should we legislate for that in Ireland also?
I fail to understand the argument that just because everybody else is doing it we should be doing it also.

Swing and a miss.

Did the right to information about drugs and FGM and where to obtain either when abroad have to be protected in our constitution?

Do we not prosecute people here who use drugs?

If you are happy for people to do these things but just not here then yes, your moral qualms about them carry little weight.

seamus

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

People are travelling to Amsterdam to take legalised drugs in that country therefore we should we should legalise drugs in Ireland???

If something specific is illegal in your country, but legal elsewhere, and people are travelling to those places so they can legally do it, then absolutely you should look at;

1. Whether it should be legalised here, and it not
2. Whether people should be prevented from travelling to those places to commit that act

It is against the law to travel for the purposes of having sex with a child. You can be stopped at the airport and arrested. Or arrested on your return if the authorities find out. I think everyone can agree that's a sensible law that should exist.

Likewise, if the supporters of the 8th find abortion as morally repugnant as they say, i.e. that it's murder, then why the silence on the 13th amendment? They practically celebrate the 13th amendment as some magical pressure-release valve that means we can keep our country virginal and abortion-free.

If the constitution contained a guarantee that every citizen was permitted to travel abroad for the purposes of having sex with a child, you could be fncking sure there'd be people on the streets demanding its removal.

Yet on abortion, silence. Why?

BarleySweets

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So you don't understand the fundamental crux of the Pro Life argument in that they see abortion as akin to taking a human life, but your response is that it's happening in other countries so what difference does it make???

If you read what I wrote in a reply to your post you’ll see that I do understand and you’ll also see that I’ve described why that fundamental crux of the Pro Life argument is totally irrelevant and tantamount to meddling in other people’s lives.

I’ll repeat myself here for your convenience: you can make all the comparisons between abortion and taking a life and murder and whatever else you like; you can be concerned all you like too but it’s none of your business.

amdublin

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Again with the marginal cases to prove the broader argument. Would you be in favour of abortion if the baby was healthy?

There are a million and one reasons why an abortion might be required.

It's a discussion and a decision between a woman and her healthcare provider. You mind your own life and leave every woman to deal with hers please and thank you.

ohnonotgmail

another woman dead because of the 8th.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-died-after-abortion-clinic-sent-her-home-despite-vomiting-and-swaying-36825436.html

amdublin

If anyone is looking for reasons women need to access abortion the In Her Shoes page on Facebook is a super resource.

I hate that it has to exist though.

Why do women need to spill their guts and share their trauma to convince people that this horrendous 8th sinply must be repealed.

Zubeneschamali

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I fail to understand the argument that just because everybody else is doing it we should be doing it also.

But that is not the argument about the 13th amendment at all.

The 8th states that the State guarantees to protect the unborn. So, in the X case, the Attorney General got a court order to stop a raped girl getting an abortion in England. It worked, the unborn was saved, and X came back to Ireland without having an abortion. It was, if you like, proven to be perfectly practicable to defend the unborn this way.

So we passed a specific amendment to prevent the State from ever doing that again.

This is not a case of us saying oh well, we can't do anything about it. The AG proved he could do things about it, and we told him to knock it off, let the women travel and the unborn die, same as it ever was before the 8th.

Purest hypocrisy.

BarleySweets

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Again with the marginal cases to prove the broader argument. Would you be in favour of abortion if the baby was healthy?

I’ll jump in here to answer this because I’m sick of all these hushed up implications that there’s something shameful or immoral potentially about to happen; note that I said implications, because the accusers are too scared themselves to come out and say what they really want to say: “that sluts should be shamed and deserve everything they get”:

I wouldn’t have any opinion because it’s the pregnant woman’s choice and, because she is a functioning adult, I’ll grant her the courtesy of assuming that she has chosen the best action for her and her family.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Again with the marginal cases to prove the broader argument. Would you be in favour of abortion if the baby was healthy?

I am in favor of that CHOICE, within certain time constraints and regulation.

Please do not conflate that with being in favor of abortion however. I would much prefer no one had abortions and time, for any reason, ever. But they do. And I am in favor of people having that choice.

And aside from shouting the word "human" at me, the anti choice campaigners do not seem to have a single reason on offer as to why I should not be in favor of that choice. Yourself being absolutely and entirely no exception.

baylah17

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Certainly.

Sinéad Fia goes to the doctor and is told she's pregnant. That is someone else's pregnancy.

Later a test says there is a 33% chance that the pregnancy will result in a child who has cerebral palsy, bilateral blindness, total deafness and will require 24 hour care for his or her short life, with a 50% chance of death within a year and only a 10% chance they will live to age 5. That is someone else's pregnancy.

Sinéad and her doctor discuss options, and agree that the best course is to terminate the pregnancy. That is someone else's pregnancy.

Obviously Sinéad lives in England, since the 8th makes such terminations subject to 14 years in jail here for both Sinéad and her doctor. That is not someone else's pregnancy - that is your fault if you vote No.

Again with the marginal cases to prove the broader argument. Would you be in favour of abortion if the baby was healthy?

Oh the smell of desperation from the Iona bot
Same constant questioning that horse****t*er has been engaging in
Deflection and feigned puzzled concern
Pathetic
Predictable but pathetic

Rogelio Tinkling Cue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

People are travelling to Amsterdam to take legalised drugs in that country therefore we should we should legalise drugs in Ireland???

Is there anywhere in the constitution that protects the rights of people to do that? No.
But there is a right to travel for abortion

Zubeneschamali

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Again with the marginal cases to prove the broader argument.

Is this some rule of logic which I missed in class? Perhaps you can tell me exactly which step is faulty:

1) Sinéad should be allowed to have an abortion.

2) She can't have one here because of the 8th.

3) Therefore we must repeal the 8th and legislate to allow it.

seamus

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Again with the marginal cases to prove the broader argument. Would you be in favour of abortion if the baby was healthy?

That question is irrelevant in the context of the eighth.

This is not a referendum on the termination of apparently uncomplicated pregnancies.

"Healthy" pregnancies are the marginal cases in this discussion. The pro-life side constantly attempt to narrow the debate down to one aspect of the eighth, when its implications are far more wide-ranging than the marginal cases of women choosing not to continue with a pregnancy.

There are plenty of people I know voting Yes to repeal the eighth who don't support abortion on demand, who only support it in cases of rape, FFA and health risk. But they have the wherewithall to recognise that this vote is not just about the 12 week limit. That is one small aspect of a massive issue.