Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

Fred Swanson · 14-03-2017 07:27PM

This post has been deleted.

Lady Spangles · 14-03-2017 07:28PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Plenty of couples out there who would love to adopt a kid.

And going by the numbers of children in care, not plenty enough for everyone. Some kids grow up entirely in care homes before being spat out into the real world and expected to fend for themselves. Still, I suppose we ought to be grateful that the mother and baby homes are no longer operating. They solved the problem by selling some babies and letting others die. How wonderfully precious their lives must have been.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 14-03-2017 07:30PM

Woodhenge wrote: »

So until what age should infanticide be legal? Surely we'd have to let parents try out a bit of parenting before administering the medical procedure? Maybe until before they can write their name?

You really don't do your argument any favours by coming out with nonsense like that. Is it just trying to get a dig in or did you really forget that children do get taken into care and adopted into early childhood?

I mean it's a point about children who are already born so maybe you didn't give enough of a shít to remember all the details of the situation and just went straight to the dead baby obsessiveness.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 14-03-2017 07:32PM

Lady Spangles wrote: »

And going by the numbers of children in care, not plenty enough for everyone. Some kids grow up entirely in care homes before being spat out into the real world and expected to fend for themselves. Still, I suppose we ought to be grateful that the mother and baby homes are no longer operating. They solved the problem by selling some babies and letting others die. How wonderfully precious their lives must have been.

That's less to do with a lack of couples looking to adopt and more to do with the adoption laws in Ireland to be fair. Very difficult to adopt a child who has living relatives, even if they're completely unfit for or uninterested in getting custody of them. Hence the amount of kids adopted from overseas.

jameorahiely · 14-03-2017 07:33PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And the other side would prefer to exterminate them like hilter some other guy who exterminated umwanted people

gctest50 · 14-03-2017 07:33PM

Dick phelan wrote: »

......Most are due to people not wanting to face responsibility for the life they have created through consensual sex.
............ man or woman you should accept responsibility for the life you created.

What if they are in a lab creating human hybrids ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4161022/Human-animal-hybrid-embryo-created-time.html

noaddedsugar · 14-03-2017 07:34PM

Woodhenge wrote: »

So until what age should infanticide be legal? Surely we'd have to let parents try out a bit of parenting before administering the medical procedure? Maybe until before they can write their name?

I think we are having different discussions. I am talking about abortion not infanticide.

January · 14-03-2017 07:39PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Plenty of couples out there who would love to adopt a kid.

Can't have your child adopted if you're married.

Woodhenge · 14-03-2017 07:40PM

Ibrahim Puny Waist wrote: »

You really don't do your argument any favours by coming out with nonsense like that. Is it just trying to get a dig in or did you really forget that children do get taken into care and adopted into early childhood?

I mean it's a point about children who are already born so maybe you didn't give enough of a shít to remember all the details of the situation and just went straight to the dead baby obsessiveness.

Well the poster obviously values simple solutions over complex ones, adoption is complex and has long reaching implications regarding future contact, right to information etc. Why add all the complexity and long term implications when there is a simple solution?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 14-03-2017 07:47PM

Woodhenge wrote: »

Well the poster obviously values simple solutions over complex ones, adoption is complex and has long reaching implications regarding future contact, right to information etc. Why add all the complexity and long term implications when there is a simple solution?

The poster was rejecting the glib 'just give it up for adoption' response.

Contentious point with the pro-life crowd but I've got this weird conviction that there's a qualitative difference between a foetus and an infant. So that's why I'd personally avoid the 'simple solution' in that case. If you think they're the same thing then good luck to you in this world, but putting out weird rhetorical questions like that does make it come across like you don't have the best grasp of the argument being made and are just resorting to cheap digs and shock tactics.

PopePalpatine · 14-03-2017 07:54PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are perhaps unaware that the Iona Institute argued against civil partnerships back in 2007, and after they lost, they then opposed SSM on the grounds that wonderful civil partnerships were available.

I have no doubt that Cóir, Youth Defence, Iona and the usual suspects will make an even more unpleasant noise over the 8th than they did for SSM, but society has changed - it will be their own reputations they sully this time.

The thing is, the Yes side had a very simple goal in the marriage equality referendum - vote Yes and same-sex couples get to marry if we win. The Repeal the 8th side aren't so lucky as there's a diverse set of goals amongst us, ranging from replacing the 8th with a less restrictive amendment on abortion, to legislating to copy the Canadian system where abortion is a private matter between a pregnant woman and her doctor, and as much as I don't want to play "tone police" here, I fear that the Repeal side will get lumped in with the extremists.

Woodhenge · 14-03-2017 07:59PM

Ibrahim Puny Waist wrote: »

The poster was rejecting the glib 'just give it up for adoption' response.

And I was rejecting the idea that there is a simple solution to concerns that parenting isn't a piece of cake.

Contentious point with the pro-life crowd but I've got this weird conviction that there's a qualitative difference between a foetus and an infant. So that's why I'd personally avoid the 'simple solution' in that case. If you think they're the same thing then good luck to you in this world, but putting out weird rhetorical questions like that does make it come across like you don't have the best grasp of the argument being made and are just resorting to cheap digs and shock tactics.

You think there is a 'qualitative difference' but what standards do you subscribe to? Which living beings pass your test? Just those that have recently been born?

jameorahiely · 14-03-2017 08:12PM

Woodhenge wrote: »

And I was rejecting the idea that there is a simple solution to concerns that parenting isn't a piece of cake.

You think there is a 'qualitative difference' but what standards do you subscribe to? Which living beings pass your test? Just those that have recently been born?

Very few will answer that because that would be admitting either a)a woman looses her choice at some stage or b) they don't agree with any limits

PopePalpatine · 14-03-2017 08:36PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

Very few will answer that because that would be admitting either a)a woman looses her choice at some stage or b) they don't agree with any limits

You called?

I'm OK with abortion-on-demand up to the beginning of foetal brain activity (and I'd be of the mindset that brain activity is a prerequisite for personhood), which is around the 18-20 week mark.

Samaris · 14-03-2017 08:42PM

There are very few extremists for either side. Most of us, ardently pro-life or ardently pro-choice, do have reserves about the absolutist arguments. Anyone whose talked to me about repealing the eighth have reserves about absolutely unlimited access to abortion, including these rather wildly hypothetical eight-month-and-three-weeks abortions despite this making the right to self-autonomy not inaccurate. Either we have bodily autonomy or we don't in terms of pregnancy. And a lot of them awkwardly add that they'd probably not choose to get an abortion themselves, but they believe in the philosophical right.

On the other side, the addendum "except in cases of rape or incest" are invariably added, as if they don't disprove the concept of the murder of the unborn. Why is the child not to be punished for the indiscretions of his parents in all cases bar rape and incest? The baby wasn't responsible and as for incest, s/he's not guaranteed to medically suffer from the limited gene pool so that isn't really a defense either (in fact, they're more likely than not to be fine genetically-speaking). But it's recognized that there's some extremes that are indefensible to go to even if it is hypocritical.

So accepting that both sides have merit in this, why can't the discussion focus on where the limits can be put rather than why limits should exist at all? To have that discussion, we need the amendment repealed.

jameorahiely · 14-03-2017 08:50PM

Samaris wrote: »

There are very few extremists for either side. Most of us, ardently pro-life or ardently pro-choice, do have reserves about the absolutist arguments. Anyone whose talked to me about repealing the eighth have reserves about absolutely unlimited access to abortion, including these rather wildly hypothetical eight-month-and-three-weeks abortions despite this making the right to self-autonomy not inaccurate. Either we have bodily autonomy or we don't in terms of pregnancy. And a lot of them awkwardly add that they'd probably not choose to get an abortion themselves, but they believe in the philosophical right.

On the other side, the addendum "except in cases of rape or incest" are invariably added, as if they don't disprove the concept of the murder of the unborn. Why is the child not to be punished for the indiscretions of his parents in all cases bar rape and incest? The baby wasn't responsible and as for incest, s/he's not guaranteed to medically suffer from the limited gene pool so that isn't really a defense either (in fact, they're more likely than not to be fine genetically-speaking). But it's recognized that there's some extremes that are indefensible to go to even if it is hypocritical.

So accepting that both sides have merit in this, why can't the discussion focus on where the limits can be put rather than why limits should exist at all? To have that discussion, we need the amendment repealed.

We don't need to have the amendment repealed before that discussion takes place. We can discuss it and time we want. The irony is you posted this in the middle of other posters having that exact discussion.

Woodhenge · 14-03-2017 08:59PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You called?

I'm OK with abortion-on-demand up to the beginning of foetal brain activity (and I'd be of the mindset that brain activity is a prerequisite for personhood), which is around the 18-20 week mark.

The problem is it involves questions of what we value as much as what we can measure. We value the lives of dogs more than ants, and lowland gorillas more than dogs. Society and the state should have something to say about a chemical plant that emits toxins that kill 2 day old developing embryos, we wouldn't leave it up to individuals to take legal action for the inconvenience of having to get pregnant again. We would be horrified at the loss of unique lives that went un-lived.

Samaris · 14-03-2017 09:04PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

[/B]

We don't need to have the amendment repealed before that discussion takes place. We can discuss it and time we want. The irony is you posted this in the middle of other posters having that exact discussion.

The discussion mostly doesn't get had, but yeah, that totally landed in the wrong bit of the conversation. I was several pages back and skimmed the last. *cough*

laserlad2010 · 14-03-2017 09:13PM

At 23-24 weeks a baby can open his or her eyes. He or she will react when you touch them, their heart rate will rise when they feel pain, they'll breathe, sh*t and pee like the rest of us.

Most ardent pro choice supporters have never seen a 24 week old baby, have never actually connected that to the fact that 2 weeks previously they were only 22 weeks, or further back, 21 or 20 weeks.

These are human beings at that stage. Have some respect, accept that its a spectrum of morality and at least try to put across your arguments whilst accepting that these "clumps of cells" have potential to be just like yourselves.

......... · 14-03-2017 09:15PM

Akrasia wrote: »

I think there is absolutely no moral argument against early term abortions (there are religious ones, but not moral ones, there's a distinction)

No this is incorrect. Even though anti religion is fashionable and popular, the reason a lot of people including myself are not pro abortion, has nothing to do with religion, and banging the anti religion drum on this one is not going to work. Biologically, even in early term abortions, you are most definitely ending a distinct human life. Any biological textbook will confirm human life and the human life cycle distinctly begins at conception.

Once a pregnancy occurs, from that point on biologically you are dealing with, and affecting two human lives, not one.

mikeym · 14-03-2017 09:16PM

The video reminds me of Watters World which is a segment on the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News.

thee glitz · 14-03-2017 09:29PM

vetinari wrote: »

The most logical outcome is 24 weeks like the UK has. It would make little sense to have different laws to them on this.

Or on anything, actually. We could request an update on UK law every Friday and amend ours as necessary, or insert some 'ditto' legislation. The government would then be freed up to dicuss other matters. As a bonus, the Seanad would be redundant and could be abolished. Obviously we couldn't just join the UK, unless they rowed back on Brexit.

The J Stands for Jay · 14-03-2017 10:32PM

Lady Spangles wrote: »

An embryo is just cells. Nothing more.

This is a terrible argument. You and I are both just cells.

Anyway, I think it should be allowed for any reason up to four weeks.

jameorahiely · 14-03-2017 10:39PM

Lady Spangles wrote: »

An embryo is just cells. Nothing more.

Using that logic,
A foetus with fatal fetal abnormality is just cells. What difference does it make if it's removed or not?

Winterlong · 14-03-2017 10:41PM

One thing I am not looking forward to is the Extreme-God-Botherers tactics in the referendum campaign.
Some of the stuff they came up with during the gay marriage referendum was way OTT. I expect it to be worse in this one.

January · 14-03-2017 10:44PM

McGaggs wrote: »

This is a terrible argument. You and I are both just cells.

Anyway, I think it should be allowed for any reason up to four weeks.

Most people don't even know they're pregnant at 4 weeks

D0NNELLY · 14-03-2017 10:48PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

Using that logic,
A foetus with fatal fetal abnormality is just cells. What difference does it make if it's removed or not?

we're all just cells..
lets see how viable any of us are after a few days without nutrients.

Lady Spangles · 14-03-2017 10:56PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

Using that logic,
A foetus with fatal fetal abnormality is just cells. What difference does it make if it's removed or not?

Embryos are cells. A ball of cells. That's it. I don't know why everyone is objecting to this? It's not a baby. It's not "alive". There's no brain activity etc.

As for fatal fetal abnormality ... well, it's fatal. The foetus is dead, so not a viable life regardless of whatever else you think it may be. What are you getting at?

January · 14-03-2017 10:58PM

Lady Spangles wrote: »

Embryos are cells. A ball of cells. That's it. I don't know why everyone is objecting to this? It's not a baby. It's not "alive". There's no brain activity etc.

As for fatal fetal abnormality ... well, it's fatal. The foetus is dead, so not a viable life regardless of whatever else you think it may be. What are you getting at?

Sorry to be pernickity, I'm prochoice but with ffa the foetus may still be alive before the abortion is performed. In many cases with women travelling from Ireland to Liverpool women's hospital for tfmr the foetus has to be dead before labour can be induced so there's an injection used to stop the heart beforehand.

Outlaw Pete · 14-03-2017 11:00PM

McGaggs wrote: »

This is a terrible argument. You and I are both just cells.

Ben Shapiro handles one of these 'It's just a bunch of cells' folk quite well in the following clip.

Audio not the best though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyKwybSueDE

Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

Comments