The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

gozunda

Ismisejack wrote: »

people have abortions anyway the anti life side claim, as if that is a legitimate reason for legalizing abortion. Lots of people do drigs anyway so why legalize them too. And murder ( of the born), that happens regularly too so why don’t the pro choice people want choice when it comes to murdering the born?

'murdering the born?????
Exaggerate much there by any chance? The whole point of this referendum is the provision of abortion services before 12 weeks. Nothing 'born comes into it - unless you are referring to the mother....

Annasopra

Ismisejack wrote: »

people have abortions anyway the anti life side claim, as if that is a legitimate reason for legalizing abortion. Lots of people do drigs anyway so why legalize them too. And murder ( of the born), that happens regularly too so why don’t the pro choice people want choice when it comes to murdering the born?

Are you still refusing to answer my question. Let me ask again? If your girlfriend wss raped by her brother or father and wanted to access an abortion, do you think she should be forced to give birth?

Ismisejack

gozunda wrote: »

'murdering the born?????
Exaggerate much there by any chance? The whole point of this referendum is the provision of abortion services before 12 weeks. Nothing 'born comes into it - unless you are referring to the mother....

If u took care to read my post that my referring to murder of the born I was referring to murder and distinguished it from murder of the unborn (abortion)

Annasopra

Ismisejack wrote: »

If u took care to read my post that my referring to murder of the born I was referring to murder and distinguished it from murder of the unborn (abortion)

Still refusing to answer my question?

Ismisejack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Are you still refusing to answer my question. Let me ask again? If your girlfriend wss raped by her brother or father and wanted to access an abortion, do you think she should be forced to give birth?

I would assist her in whatever way possible however the unborn child shouldn’t get the death sentence for its fathers actions.

Annasopra

Ismisejack wrote: »

I would assist her in whatever way possible however the unborn child shouldn’t get the death sentence for its fathers actions.

So you do believe she should be forced to give birth against her will then.

uptherebels

Ismisejack wrote: »

people have abortions anyway the anti life side claim, as if that is a legitimate reason for legalizing abortion. Lots of people do drigs anyway so why legalize them too. And murder ( of the born), that happens regularly too so why don’t the pro choice people want choice when it comes to murdering the born?

Maybe because most people are against murdering actual babies!!
Anti choicers keep comparing legalising abortion with legalising drugs, while at the same time ignoring that Irish women already have constitutional protection to procure an abortion aslong as they can afford to travel.
So your trying to compare to things that aren't comparable in a poor attempt to make an arguement that isn't actually an arguement.

frag420

Ismisejack wrote: »

I would assist her in whatever way possible however the unborn child shouldn’t get the death sentence for its fathers actions.

What if your father raped your 14 yr old sister....would you force her to term if she wanted to terminate the pregnancy?

gozunda

Ismisejack wrote: »

Abortion is the unlawful killing of another unborn child, and that is what yee are trying to legalize

Ismisejack wrote: »

In Ireland abortion services are not currently provided . That is what many are trying to legalise

Fixed that for you ...

Ismisejack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So you do believe she should be forced to give birth against her will then.

She has been victim of an awful crime and should be compensated as a result, the perpetrators punished appropriately , however killing the unborn isn’t the solution, there is more humane solutions, two wrongs don’t make a right, the child shouldn’t get the death sentence for its fathers actions. The mother should be assisted every way possible with her pregnancy

Annasopra

gozunda wrote: »

Fixed that for you ...

Apart from cases that meet criteria in POLDPA Act 2013

gozunda

Ismisejack wrote: »

If u took care to read my post that my referring to murder of the born I was referring to murder and distinguished it from murder of the unborn (abortion)

No you were using hyperbole and exaggeration which unfortunately made no sense whatsover with regard to the current debate

david75

Ismisejack wrote: »

She has been victim of an awful crime and should be compensated as a result, the perpetrators punished appropriately , however killing the unborn isn’t the solution, there is more humane solutions, two wrongs don’t make a right, the child shouldn’t get the death sentence for its fathers actions. The mother should be assisted every way possible with her pregnancy

So you support rape?

Annasopra

Ismisejack wrote: »

She has been victim of an awful crime and should be compensated as a result, the perpetrators punished appropriately , however killing the unborn isn’t the solution, there is more humane solutions, two wrongs don’t make a right, the child shouldn’t get the death sentence for its fathers actions. The mother should be assisted every way possible with her pregnancy

Yes. And you believe in forcing her to carry the pregnancy to full term against her wishes. Not sure how you can call that humane.

Hannibal_Smith

Ismisejack wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person by another person. Nobody is murdering another person or promoting that that should be legalised.

Abortion is the unlawful killing of another unborn child, and that is what yee are trying to legalize

Unborn child is not another person. This has been explained to you time and again. You don't understand the fetus developmental process, that is clear. But I think the repeated wading in here with inflammatory claims and accusations, insulting the opinion of other posters because they don't align with your beliefs does not help the discussion. You are not going to change your mind, your vote is clear, so are we just going to have to continue to be subjected to your venting?

Abortion is illegal yes. That is what we are trying to change yes. It is not murder. No one is murdering anyone.

gozunda

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Apart from cases that meet criteria in POLDPA Act 2013

True - my omission

Ismisejack

david75 wrote: »

So you support rape?

I clearly stated that rape is an inexcusable crime and not for one second did I say anything other than that so stop putting words in my mouth and spreading false and utterly untrue propaganda about me tarnishing my nane

NuMarvel

professore wrote: »

What worries me is that once the 8th is repealed, the unborn child has no rights whatsoever under the constitution. That's a problem for me.

The status quo is also a problem because it means a pregnant woman effectively has no rights, bar her right to life. Other rights, such as her right to bodily autonomy, her right to her health, her right to be free of cruel and degrading treatment all go out the window.

The exception to that is the freedom to travel, which means the constitution says the unborn has no rights if the woman has the means and desire to travel.

The present situation is the result of putting rights for the unborn into the constitution. As someone else said, the unborn in Ireland managed fine without constitutional rights up to 1983, and they manage fine without them in most other countries. Their rights are more appropriately set out in legislation, because for every unborn, there's a woman. Their rights must be considered and protected as well and that's best done in legislation, not a constitution.

professore wrote: »

There could have been some reasonable replacement for the 8th instead of repeal.

Not really, and there's a reason not one single politician or legal expert has proposed it as a alternative.

Back in 1983, the Attorney General's legal opinion was the 8th wasn't fit for purpose. As he put it, the subject matter is too complex and touches on too many other disciplines, eg medical, and ethical, to be properly dealt with in a constitutional provision.

And he was right, because look what's happened since: we've had 4, soon to be 5, subsequent referendums, multiple high court and supreme courts cases, and numerous citations against us from internationally recognised human rights authorities.

Amendments are supposed to settle matters, not create more questions, and I can't imagine that a replacement to the 8th wouldn't be just as bad, if not worse.

professore wrote: »

It's like the choice between Hillary and Trump all over again.

That's not even a choice, but it's a very good analogy.

The former is someone who is absolutely qualified for the job, isn't by any means perfect, but can be trusted to do the job and not cause a complete mess. The latter is the status quo, which few if any support, doesn't do the job it's supposed to do, and which is only going to get worse over time.

Some people may not consider Hilary perfect, but neither is Trump and Hilary's far and away the least worse option of the two. The same goes for the choice between a Yes and a No vote.

Ismisejack

Using positive words such as choice etc and calling unborn child fetus etc is pro abortion contingents way of making abortion sound less inhumane than it actually is

nozzferrahhtoo

Ismisejack wrote: »

people have abortions anyway the anti life side claim, as if that is a legitimate reason for legalizing abortion. Lots of people do drigs anyway so why legalize them too. And murder ( of the born), that happens regularly too so why don’t the pro choice people want choice when it comes to murdering the born?

The first problem with your nonsense here is that you have failed to offer any arguments, when challenged, on why we should not have abortion up to 12 weeks in the first place. You demand we "legitimize" abortion, but have no arguments against it. In a world of "innocent until proven guilty" it should be you explaining what is WRONG with abortion, not us having to defend it against a prosecution case that you are both unwilling AND incapable of leveling.

The second problem here with your nonsense is that there are indeed very good reasons to legalize drugs. So your "why not legalize them too" falls on it's own face. Shoot yourself in the foot much?

The third and most important fail in your nonsense however is the comparison of murdering children with the abortion of the fetus. Not least because you clearly do not know what the word "murder" means. But also because the two simply are not equivalent. We kill life all the time on this planet. In farming, medicine, manufacturing and much more we are in the business daily of ending life. If we wish to define certain life as being protected from that, then we must be clear on what basis. What attributes must "life" have to protect it with a "right to life" exactly?

Aside from screeching words like "child" and "born" and "baby" and "human" at this question, you and your anti choice cohort have not answered this question. And I think you know as well as I do why that is. It is quite simply because you know as well as I do what the attributes I speak of are. And the fetus at 0-16 weeks lacks them not just slightly but ENTIRELY.

So the best you can do is dodge and ignore the question, and engage in these ongoing hit and run posts of soap boxing where you do not actually engage in good faith with any level of discourse on the topic. Just a periodic spewing of propaganda upon which you allow no honest two way discussion. An MO that benefits the pro-choice side more than you know. So by all means do keep it up.

Annasopra

Ismisejack wrote: »

Using positive words such as choice etc and calling unborn child fetus etc is pro abortion contingents way of making abortion sound less inhumane than it actually is

To be honest I dont understand the inhumamnity of forcing any woman to remain pregnant against her wishes. Thats inhumane.

baylah17

Ismisejack wrote: »

She has been victim of an awful crime and should be compensated as a result, the perpetrators punished appropriately , however killing the unborn isn’t the solution, there is more humane solutions, two wrongs don’t make a right, the child shouldn’t get the death sentence for its fathers actions. The mother should be assisted every way possible with her pregnancy

so you are saying that a rape victim should be forced to remain pregnant under coercion? Enforced pregnancy?:mad:

Theres your Pro-Life compassion and humanity folks, queue and take a look!

Ismisejack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The first problem with your nonsense here is that you have failed to offer any arguments, when challenged, on why we should not have abortion up to 12 weeks in the first place. You demand we "legitimize" abortion, but have no arguments against it. In a world of "innocent until proven guilty" it should be you explaining what is WRONG with abortion, not us having to defend it against a prosecution case that you are both unwilling AND incapable of leveling.

The second problem here with your nonsense is that there are indeed very good reasons to legalize drugs. So your "why not legalize them too" falls on it's own face. Shoot yourself in the foot much?

The third and most important fail in your nonsense however is the comparison of murdering children with the abortion of the fetus. Not least because you clearly do not know what the word "murder" means. But also because the two simply are not equivalent. We kill life all the time on this planet. In farming, medicine, manufacturing and much more we are in the business daily of ending life. If we wish to define certain life as being protected from that, then we must be clear on what basis. What attributes must "life" have to protect it with a "right to life" exactly?

Aside from screeching words like "child" and "born" and "baby" and "human" at this question, you and your anti choice cohort have not answered this question. And I think you know as well as I do why that is. It is quite simply because you know as well as I do what the attributes I speak of are. And the fetus at 0-16 weeks lacks them not just slightly but ENTIRELY.

So the best you can do is dodge and ignore the question, and engage in these ongoing hit and run posts of soap boxing where you do not actually engage in good faith with any level of discourse on the topic. Just a periodic spewing of propaganda upon which you allow no honest two way discussion. An MO that benefits the pro-choice side more than you know. So by all means do keep it up.

I have clearly stated the reason behind my stance against abortion- abortion ends human life , it’s the act of killing an unborn child and in my opinion that is wholly unacceptable. Simple as that

david75

Ismisejack wrote: »

I clearly stated that rape is an inexcusable crime and not for one second did I say anything other than that so stop putting words in my mouth and spreading false and utterly untrue propaganda about me tarnishing my nane

You’ve been spouting utter nonsense lies and hysteria since you joined us and stating fictional extremes as facts.
This was a response in kind.

baylah17

Ismisejack wrote: »

Using positive words such as choice etc and calling unborn child fetus etc is pro abortion contingents way of making abortion sound less inhumane than it actually is

Based on your post you are in no position to lecture anyone on humanity.
You use use words like baby for a 8 week old fetus, you label child victims of rape who terminate their pregnancy as murderers, you twist words, you judge that which you will never have to endure and you label and condemn the real victims here.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ismisejack wrote: »

Using positive words such as choice etc and calling unborn child fetus etc is pro abortion contingents way of making abortion sound less inhumane than it actually is

So basically your issue is that people are using words CORRECTLY and your position is therefore based on moaning about this, while using words like "murder" and "child" incorrectly.

When you find your position is based on misusing words, while complaining about others CORRECT use of words, then you have reached a level of being wrong the likes of which I have never witnessed on this forum before.

The issue however is NOT that the pro choice side is inhumane or dehumanizing the fetus. The issue is that you are humanizing it before it's due, and without basis. And then simply having something of a tantrum that people do not just swallow that whole, and without question.

If you genuinely were interested in constructing an argument against abortion, the pro-choice narrative, and the removal of rights of the unborn from the constitution then there is a way to do it. You simply have to (for once) construct an argument more robust than merely screeching words like "Human" and "child" as to why a fetus at 0-16 weeks should have any rights at all.

This has not been done by any of the anti-choice contingent. Least of all by yourself.

Ismisejack wrote: »

I have clearly stated the reason behind my stance against abortion- abortion ends human life , it’s the act of killing an unborn child and in my opinion that is wholly unacceptable. Simple as that

That is not simple, it is simplistic. Much different. You are doing exactly what I described. Merely screeching words like "child" as if the misuse of words will construct an argument for you where you have failed to do so.

No one has denied you have stated your positions here. Your reasoning however need a lot more work. It is entirely circular, and entirely based on assertion. And that assertion is entirely grounded in the misuse of terms and language.

But at least you are actually replying to people who reply to you now. Which is a step forward and a massive improvement on your MO to date. So there is hope yet.

Hannibal_Smith

Ismisejack wrote: »

I have clearly stated the reason behind my stance against abortion- abortion ends human life , it’s the act of killing an unborn child and in my opinion that is wholly unacceptable. Simple as that

But no one is denying you that opinion. Your facts are wrong, but your opinion and your vote is yours.

To keep dropping insulting grenades like you do is soap boxing is bringing the thread round and round in circles. People are going to vote your way and others aren't. You may want to control what a woman is allowed to with her body, but you can't control her vote.

david75

Haha. True.

It can be very dangerous to see things from somebody else's point of view without the proper training. DOUGLAS ADAMS

Zubeneschamali

david75 wrote: »

Are these guys knowingly warping into a parody of themselves and gettin more ridiculous or is it just me?

An increasing number of new/long dormant posters suddenly popping in with a briefcase full of talking points. Not so much ridiculous as transparently fake.

After 12,000 posts in these threads, it's suddenly super-urgent that we drop all ongoing conversations and debate these new folks. Just one argument! One! Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

david75

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

An increasing number of new/long dormant posters suddenly popping in with a briefcase full of talking points. Not so much ridiculous as transparently fake.

After 12,000 posts in these threads, it's suddenly super-urgent that we drop all ongoing conversations and debate these new folks. Just one argument! One! Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

But they’re increasingly hysterical and nonsensical. Last few don’t even sound Irish tbh




This looks like he’s got something for both sides.

https://twitter.com/simonharristd/status/978516445998043137?s=21