Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

Charmeleon

Double post.

oscarBravo

Charmeleon wrote: »

I don’t see the argument for that in the last few pages, only the argument that the constituition is there to defend rights against manipulation and expediency by political and judicial actors.

DarkScar wrote: »

Defining what is a human being in the eyes of the state is about as fundamental as a right can be. It simply has to be covered by the constitution, not legislation.

.

Charmeleon

oscarBravo wrote: »

.

OK, my mistake. I do think though in the context of the discussion that’s a slightly pedantic take on what the post intended, which is that human rights should be acknowledged in the constituition and not in legislation. Maybe they will correct me and say they really do mean the constituition should have an unnecessary, and morally suspect, technical definition inserted into it.

seamus

Pete29 wrote: »

Has there been a Supreme court case which verified this?

Should there be?

It's a fair point, but if government policy was to enact legislation and then wait to see if someone brings a case to the supreme court about it, we would rightfully say that our system is broken. The constitution should not be used as a stick to beat the government with, nor a set of boundaries that the government should push. A Government should not implement potentially unconstitutional laws and citizens should not have to incur the expense of a supreme court challenge in order to assert rights.

The government employs legal experts, many of whom will have sat in the supreme court, to examine all legislative proposals for constitutionality and provide expert advice on it.

There is also a specific constitutional clause which allows the President to refer any legislation to a constitutional council if he/she believes that the legislation may be unconstitutional before he signs it.

In effect, while the supreme court is the ultimate constitutional authority, if it rules a piece of legislation unconstitutional, then that means that the Government and the President have failed in their duty to uphold the constitution.

Some other countries have a framework where the supreme court and government operate in a pseudo-adversarial role, this is not how it operates in Ireland.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was merely countering any implication that there was a problem rolling out accurate recording of numbers availing of the regulated services.

I take it you accept recording as accurate.

except in your own example of D-Day, we still can’t properly account for how many died when, where or how:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-challenge-of-counting-d-days-dead/amp/

So what were you saying again?

1. 3% extra footfall by way of extra normal maternity service is a drop in the ocean. A few years previously, the service handled an extra 50k full delivery footfall.

Leaving aside new procedures for a moment, the load on service by an abortion is a fraction of what it takes to manage a pregancy to delivery.. lets suppose the extra equivilent-to-standard-pregnancy load on service is 1%.

Thats nothing in terms of core infrastructure or extra personnel.

2. The numbers I gave are misleading (although not in a significant sense - the startling ramp up still occurs). Abortion was already occurring in hospitals. That 27k figure in 1967, for example, would have been abortions taking place before the new legislation came into effect.

People were already trained, the infrastructure is there, the extra load negligible.

Unless you can find evidence of queues round the block...

Well then, you’re simply stating that the spike in recorded numbers will be quick.

Even with all the medical and hospital rollout, how quickly will at home, online ordered pills become accurately recorded?

Either way I think you seem to agree with my drift here: that the spike post legalization is not a run on abortions but rather the transition from under the table to over it.

DarkScar

Charmeleon wrote: »

these are fundemental rights that do not have to pass anyone’s self appointed test and are non-negotiable. That is the only thing that stands between us and barbarism.

I don't see how they are particularly "fundamental" when people don't agree on them. This is almost the "silent majority" line of argument, where the stuff that isn't actually there agrees with you every time.

Charmeleon

DarkScar wrote: »

I don't see how they are particularly "fundamental" when people don't agree on them. This is almost the "silent majority" line of argument, where the stuff that isn't actually there agrees with you every time.

The right to life is internationally recognised by all civilised states, and it is fundemental in that you cannot grant it or take it away from fellow human beings except in very exceptional circumstances. Amnesty used to campaign for it to be universally recognised.

DarkScar

Charmeleon wrote: »

The right to life is internationally recognised by all civilised states, and it is fundemental in that you cannot grant it or take it away from fellow human beings except in very exceptional circumstances. Amnesty used to campaign for it to be universally recognised.

I'm not arguing that the "right to life" isn't pretty much universally recognised, but you know well that who/what this right applies to is most certainly not universally accepted.

Charmeleon

DarkScar wrote: »

I'm not arguing that the "right to life" isn't pretty much universally recognised, but you know well that who/what this right applies to is most certainly not universally accepted.

Progress has been made though. In all but one or two marginal outliers it has been prohibited by law in all countries to execute a pregnant woman.

DarkScar

Charmeleon wrote: »

Progress has been made though. In all but one or two marginal outliers it has been prohibited by law in all countries to execute a pregnant woman.

Glad you think it's hilarious. Pity you insisted on dodging the question though. If you were any good at this you'd combine the two.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Glad you think it's hilarious. Pity you insisted on dodging the question though. If you were any good at this you'd combine the two.

You know, you don’t have to post ‘at’ people with such an enormous chip on your shoulder.

I think you’d have a happier time if you respected the nature and context of the discussion rather than trying to grind everything you disagree with down into pedantry - something you’re not doing well, I might add.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

You know, you don’t have to post ‘at’ people with such an enormous chip on your shoulder.

I think you’d have a happier time if you respected the nature and context of the discussion rather than trying to grind everything you disagree with down into pedantry - something you’re not doing well, I might add.

Ah yes, let's ignore the discussion and have a big tedious whine about me now. I'm not doing well? Says the "if you're not breathing you're not a human" guy. Guffaw. Nothing specific about the actual argument though, just vague tripe.
Pass.

Charmeleon

DarkScar wrote: »

Glad you think it's hilarious. Pity you insisted on dodging the question though. If you were any good at this you'd combine the two.

What makes you think I find it even mildly amusing? Why would all states, bar one or two, prohibit the execution of pregnant women for the most serious crimes if there wasn’t some consensus that it is wrong to take two lives when one of them has committed no crime? That to me is a sign of a growing recognition of at least a qualified right to life and dignity for the unborn. No gestational limits as far as I am aware. Pregnancy disqualifies you from execution.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Ah yes, let's ignore the discussion and have a big tedious whine about me now. I'm not doing well? Says the "if you're not breathing you're not a human" guy. Guffaw. Nothing specific about the actual argument though, just vague tripe.
Pass.

Please quote where I said if you’re not breathing you’re not human, since I was quite clear you can still be human and on life support. You seem to be arguing with yourself, here.

blanch152

Charmeleon wrote: »

What makes you think I find it even mildly amusing? Why would all states, bar one or two, prohibit the execution of pregnant women for the most serious crimes if there wasn’t some consensus that it is wrong to take two lives when one of them has committed no crime? That to me is a sign of a growing recognition of at least a qualified right to life and dignity for the unborn. No gestational limits as far as I am aware. Pregnancy disqualifies you from execution.

Is there anyone in this country who doesn't accept that the unborn have at least a qualified right to life? I don't think so.

Take the average pro-choice voter:

Do they believe the unborn have a qualified right to life? Yes.
Is that an equal right to life? No.
Does it need to be enshrined in the Constitution? No.
Does a mother's right to health give here a choice over the qualified right to life? Yes.

So what is the point of a situation which also only has a qualified right to life?

Charmeleon

blanch152 wrote: »

Is there anyone in this country who doesn't accept that the unborn have at least a qualified right to life? I don't think so.

Take the average pro-choice voter:

Do they believe the unborn have a qualified right to life? Yes.
Is that an equal right to life? No.
Does it need to be enshrined in the Constitution? No.
Does a mother's right to health give here a choice over the qualified right to life? Yes.

So what is the point of a situation which also only has a qualified right to life?

If even a qualified right can be manditorily revoked on request by someone else, you do not in fact hold that right at all. You actually have zero rights. If a pro-choice voter is voting yes under the impression the unborn still has some rights, they are badly mistaken.

The unborn have a qualified right to life because the state cannot vindicate that right if the mother dies during pregnancy and before viability or if a life threatening situation develops which only affects the mother but would result in the death of both if the pregnancy continues.

Pete29

I guess if the referendum passes, abortion for any reason may be offered as part of the public health care system.

This means myself and others may have to pay taxes in order to fund the killing of consensual and healthy unborn children.

Where's our choice in this situation?

nozzferrahhtoo

In the same place it is in every other place your money is spent against your will. For example when paying taxes in Ireland myself, part of those funds go towards the religious indoctrination of children in our schools.

Our "choice" there is to exercise our rights to free speech (or withhold that right, as you do when you ignore my posts to you) and democracy and to campaign for changes that will ensure our money is not wasted on frivolous hobbies, and other issues we disagree with.

SusieBlue

Pete29 wrote: »

I guess if the referendum passes, abortion for any reason may be offered as part of the public health care system.

This means myself and others may have to pay taxes in order to fund the killing of unborn children.

Where's our choice?

How do you feel about lazy people who see the dole as a lifelong career choice being funded by your taxes?

How do you feel when your doctors appointment is delayed because the waiting room is full of people with medical cards who have a sore finger or a headache?

How do you feel about taxes spent on Playstation 4's for dangerous criminals, locked up for breaking the law?

There are many, many areas of tax expenditure that I don't agree with.
There's nothing you can do about it. Its part of living in a democratic society.

Zubeneschamali

Pete29 wrote: »

I guess if the referendum passes, abortion for any reason may be offered as part of the public health care system.

This is already happening under PoLDPA since 2015.

Before that, the HSE took some people, like the victim in the C case, to England when necessary.

You have no choice in where your taxes are spent except by lobbying the Government.

Pete29

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You have no choice in where your taxes are spent except by lobbying the Government.

and voting for candidates who are against using public funds for killing healthy infants in healthy mothers.

Edit: Not very pro-choice of you.

nozzferrahhtoo

By all means try that! Preferably a candidate who is able to adumbrate the reasoning behind thinking the termination of a 10 week old fetus is morally problematic where you yourself have failed to do so. Then you would have a candidate that could not just act for you, but speak for you too. And if their arguments on the subject are convincing, he or she would get my vote too.

Zubeneschamali

Pete29 wrote: »

and voting for candidates who are against using public funds for killing healthy infants in healthy mothers.

Renua was formed on this platform of being FG without abortion, and they all lost their seats at the very next election, so good luck with that.

Pete29

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

By all means try that! Preferably a candidate who is able to adumbrate the reasoning behind thinking the termination of a 10 week old fetus is morally problematic where you yourself have failed to do so. Then you would have a candidate that could not just act for you, but speak for you too. And if their arguments on the subject are convincing, he or she would get my vote too.

You can't get blood from a stone, I guess.

blanch152

Pete29 wrote: »

I guess if the referendum passes, abortion for any reason may be offered as part of the public health care system.

This means myself and others may have to pay taxes in order to fund the killing of consensual and healthy unborn children.

Where's our choice in this situation?

I see the cloak has slipped revealing the beating heart of a pro-life opinion? Or am I wrong?

Pete29

blanch152 wrote: »

I see the cloak has slipped revealing the beating heart of a pro-life opinion? Or am I wrong?

What are you asking exactly?

blanch152

Charmeleon wrote: »

If even a qualified right can be manditorily revoked on request by someone else, you do not in fact hold that right at all. You actually have zero rights. If a pro-choice voter is voting yes under the impression the unborn still has some rights, they are badly mistaken.

The unborn have a qualified right to life because the state cannot vindicate that right if the mother dies during pregnancy and before viability or if a life threatening situation develops which only affects the mother but would result in the death of both if the pregnancy continues.

Why do people argue with something I didn't say?

Consistently, since the start of this debate, I have said that the issue is a matter of balancing rights. Nobody, nobody has an absolute right to life at others' expense.

The unborn have a qualified right to life. That's why the government isn't proposing abortion for unlimited reasons after 12 weeks. By imposing such a limit, they are recognising the right to life of the unborn, just qualifying it.

Just like your right to social welfare can be qualified by income limits, or your right to education can be qualified by the ability to get on a course, or the other millions of ways that millions of rights are qualified.

people_sheeple

2 Questions for Yes voters:
1. If a woman told you she was 11 weeks pregnant would you say congratulations ?
If Yes, Why ?

2. Do you think its ok for a woman to take drugs and alcohol at 11 weeks pregnant ?
If No, Why ?

Zubeneschamali

people_sheeple wrote: »

2 Questions for Yes voters:

Too late, I already voted.


If only you had posted those vital questions yesterday!

people_sheeple

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Too late, I already voted.


If only you had posted those vital questions yesterday!

so you voted and I assume you voted Yes ....that would make you a Yes Voter then wouldn't it ?