8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Any opinions on the poll? It worries me I have to say, if it's anything like the SSM ref the undecideds will break heavily towards No. We really could be looking at the divorce referendum again.

seamus

Nettle Soup wrote: »

The Roman church seem to have gone quiet after a few recent gaffes. Or maybe they are keeping the head down in media and hammering the No order home locally?

Since the mid-nineties, they've tended to keep their head down. They're aware that since we discovered they were raping boys, imprisoning young women and burying babies in septic tanks, official church involvement in a campaign tends to kill it stone dead.

So instead they rely on less exposed church groups like Opus Dei and their "benign" front organisations like the Iona Institute to run religious campaigns on their behalf.

There is no non-religious "No" campaign. That's worth pointing out again.

Religious groups alone are behind the entire "No" campaign.

kylith

Just her wrote: »

kylith wrote: »

Key word there is DEVELOPING. It is developing into a baby, it is not a baby.

No, it is a developing baby

Which is not a baby. It is developing into one.

Just her

Grayson wrote: »

But you would congratulate someone on a new job even if they haven't actually started yet.

When people try to say the foetus is a person they have to define what a human is. I don't think DNA is enough. A pubic hair has human DNA. A dead person on life support has DNA. If I chop of my finger, it has DNA. If simply saying it possesses human DNA was the only qualification then we'd be in a pickle.

Now I would agree that possessing human DNA is a criteria but it's not the only one. It's a starting point.

Well the foetus has all the same parts as the baby? Just needs some time to develop and be born.

Larbre34

The hair splitting had become beyond ridiculous.

Ok, its a baby. Its a baby from the moment Daddy (possibly Granddaddy as well in certain criminal violations) rolls over and wipes the tip in his underpants.

I know its a human baby, 97% of which are very likely to reach term and be born as a baby. At 12 weeks though, that baby is incapable of independent existence and for me that makes it entirely the host woman's business about whether or why she chooses to continue her pregnancy - in any circumstances.

So to No siders, lots of people feel as I do and no philosophical argument is going to scratch the surface of changing our views.

SusieBlue

Just her wrote: »

Well the foetus has all the same parts as the baby? Just needs some time to develop and be born.

Actual born citizens should take precedence over potential ones.

gmisk

Flying Fox wrote: »

Any opinions on the poll? It worries me I have to say, if it's anything like the SSM ref the undecideds will break heavily towards No. We really could be looking at the divorce referendum again.

I think it will be tight but I think it was always going to be, maybe roughly 55/45 for yes.
I think there is an indication that the undecideds might break for Yes this time, so we will see, I will be happy as long as it passes even if it is tight.


The bookies also have generally
1/4 Yes
11/4 No


Hopefully the polls give the Yes side a kick up the a#se to go and vote. Trump and Brexit have taught us not to take anything for granted I hope!

GaGa21

neonsofa wrote:

Yeah I mean my friend "announced" to me when she was trying for a baby because she got the all clear from her medical team to do so. We marked the occasion with some wine for me and an orange juice for her over dinner. There was no baby,we were basically drinking to a more active sex life (which is as good a reason as any I suppose!) but it's the hopes and plans and dreams that she holds for her future child (she is still TTC) that we were celebrating.

But what if those hopes and dreams change to a reality of a fatal foetal abnormality or her own life is put at risk? It can and does happen to women all over Ireland. And if it does, it's only when you're in that situation that you will realise what you will or won't do. What we need is the choice.

neonsofa

Just her wrote: »

Well the foetus has all the same parts as the baby? Just needs some time to develop and be born.

A dead/dying person generally has all the same parts as a living person. Doesn't mean they're alive and well.

Just her

wexie wrote: »

You don't that largely depends on at what stage 'before' you look?

7 months I'd absolutely agree with you (I was born at 7 months)

12 weeks....not so much

Well that brings another point to mind, everyone in this debate is safe in the knowledge that they can never be aborted. They have been given a chance to live their life. So why campaign so much for others to be denied the opportunity to live their lives too as you do? You might argue you aren't campaigning for abortion but ultimately more will be aborted if it becomes more accessible. It stands to reason in my opinion.

kylith

pleas advice wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

Now I would agree that possessing human DNA is a criteria but it's not the only one. It's a starting point.

Not just human DNA. It is a genetically separate human entity.

Genetically, yes. But it is not a separate entity until it is capable of existing separately.

iamwhoiam

Just her wrote: »

Well the foetus has all the same parts as the baby? Just needs some time to develop and be born.

Unfortunately for some this is not the case . Many foetus do not develop as they should and parts are missing . Some parts are vital and if missing the foetus will not survive .

kylith

Just her wrote: »

Well the foetus has all the same parts as the baby? Just needs some time to develop and be born.

No it doesn’t. It doesn’t have eyes, ears, lungs, kidneys, a digestive system, a nervous system, and a functioning brain.

At 18 weeks my own foetus is only now calcifying it’s skeleton and developing myelin, a protein essential for impulse conduction, on its nerve endings.

Sofiztikated

Larbre34 wrote: »

The hair splitting had become beyond ridiculous.

Ok, its a baby. Its a baby from the moment Daddy (possibly Granddaddy as well in certain criminal violations) rolls over and wipes the tip in his underpants.

I know its a human baby, 97% of which are very likely to reach term and be born as a baby. At 12 weeks though, that baby is incapable of independent existence and for me that makes it entirely the host woman's business about whether or why she chooses to continue her pregnancy - in any circumstances.

So to No siders, lots of people feel as I do and no philosophical argument is going to scratch the surface of changing our views.

While I agree with your post, I think your 97% is incorrect.

1 in 4 women have a miscarriage. I haven't seen or worked out the percentage of pregnancies though.

A percentage end from intentional interference, a percentage I haven't seen conclusive evidence for.

But its more than 3%.

Hurrache

Nice bit of vandalism by the No side

https://twitter.com/N_Five_One_B_U/status/997019807261319168

Calina

Just her wrote: »

wexie wrote: »

You don't that largely depends on at what stage 'before' you look?

7 months I'd absolutely agree with you (I was born at 7 months)

12 weeks....not so much

Well that brings another point to mind, everyone in this debate is safe in the knowledge that they can never be aborted. They have been given a chance to live their life. So why campaign so much for others to be denied the opportunity to live their lives too as you do? You might argue you aren't campaigning for abortion but ultimately more will be aborted if it becomes more accessible. It stands to reason in my opinion.

I want people to have the freedom to live their lives. That is why the 8th has to go.

Leaving it there suggests you are good for freedom for men, unborn children of indeterminate sex but not born females. Their freedom to live is limited by the 8th amendment.

Just her

Just her wrote: »

Well that brings another point to mind, everyone in this debate is safe in the knowledge that they can never be aborted. They have been given a chance to live their life. So why campaign so much for others to be denied the opportunity to live their lives too as you do? You might argue you aren't campaigning for abortion but ultimately more will be aborted if it becomes more accessible. It stands to reason in my opinion.

something that has never existed does not have the capability to know what they are missing or that they miss anything.
If my mother had aborted me, I would never have become a living person, I would not know what life was, I couldn't miss it.
Similarly, we cannot miss that which does not nor has never existed.
an embryo of less than 12 weeks, should not have any rights to life above those of its mother. I prefer to vote that the living breathing existing woman, be given an opportunity to live her life as she would wish.

pearcider

Serious echo chamber in here. Even the moderators so called guidance comments in post one are so biased in favour of one side, it's grotesque.

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

Not just human DNA. It is a genetically separate human entity.

Why is genetic separation relevant though? Take IVF for example where we commonly destroy genetically separate human entities. Or look over the history of stem cell research.

Sofiztikated

Just her wrote: »

You might argue you aren't campaigning for abortion but ultimately more will be aborted if it becomes more accessible. It stands to reason in my opinion.

The figure will go from officially 0* to more than 0.

This figure will comprise of those that were travelling anyway, importing and taking pills anyway, and those that wanted to travel that had no means to.

This isn't a surprise to Yes voters, these are the people we are fighting for.

*Its not zero, there have been some.

neonsofa

GaGa21 wrote: »

But what if those hopes and dreams change to a reality of a fatal foetal abnormality or her own life is put at risk? It can and does happen to women all over Ireland. And if it does, it's only when you're in that situation that you will realise what you will or won't do. What we need is the choice.

Um, preaching to choir GaGa. My point was that people attribute meaning based on their circumstances. The no side can argue that a 12 week foetus is a fully formed "baby" all they like, arguing that we congratulate women on their "baby", but that's based on the meaning the mother-and others- apply to the situation.

Just her

....... wrote: »

It is. But why does that make it worthy of having a right to life?

Should you not be out protesting the disposal of IVF embryos if this is a salient point?

What makes you worthy of deciding upon someone else's right to life?

SusieBlue

Just her wrote: »

What makes you worthy of deciding upon someone else's right to life?

What makes you worthy of having an input on someone else's actual life?
What makes you think you are entitled to take choice away from another woman?

Sofiztikated

Just her wrote: »

What makes you worthy of deciding upon someone else's right to life?

If they are the ones directly involved in the creating of that life, I'd say they're worthy.

seamus

pearcider wrote: »

Serious echo chamber in here. Even the moderators so called guidance comments in post one are so biased in favour of one side, it's grotesque.

Or just an indicator that when nobody is shackled into providing the illusion of "balance", one side is just incapable of presenting its own arguments in a civil and respectful way?

pearcider

seamus wrote: »

Or just an indicator that when nobody is shackled into providing the illusion of "balance", one side is just incapable of presenting its own arguments in a civil and respectful way?

What does that even mean? It's just an indication that boards is full of feminists and 20 something social justice warriors.

Calina

Just her wrote: »

....... wrote: »

It is. But why does that make it worthy of having a right to life?

Should you not be out protesting the disposal of IVF embryos if this is a salient point?

What makes you worthy of deciding upon someone else's right to life?

Voting to retain the 8th amendment is the definition of deciding on someone else's right to life.

Mr. CooL ICE

pearcider wrote: »

Serious echo chamber in here. Even the moderators so called guidance comments in post one are so biased in favour of one side, it's grotesque.

If you spot any mistakes or inaccuracies, or have any amendments to suggest for the OP, feel free to PM a mod with your suggestions.

FYI, I tried to keep it unbiased. The FAQ was written with the previous 20,000 posts from the previous threads in mind. The same questions kept popping up every few days, and the same answers were given. The questions, you could say, were frequently asked.

AnneFrank

pearcider wrote: »

Serious echo chamber in here. Even the moderators so called guidance comments in post one are so biased in favour of one side, it's grotesque.

It's just not worth posting anymore, it's just back slapping from the yes side. As splinter said, leave them to it.
People with a different opinion just get treated differently and banned as highlighted many, many times.
It will be decided by people on their own casting the vote.
Treat all children equally.
#savethe8th

pearcider

People are coming up with all sorts of arguments but at the end it's all disengenuous. At the end of the day, the abortion rate in progressive countries like Sweden is 1 in 3 babies are killed. In Ireland it's 1 in 19. So by voting yes, you will be voting to murder thousands more Irish citizens per year. Grotesque.