The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

conorhal wrote: »

So 'it's fair game' till then? That's sociopathic.

No, till then its continued life is dependant on a risk to the health or life of another person, the mother.

gizmo81 wrote: »

When the mother gives birth.

So the journey through the vaginal canal confers personhood?
While the thing in the womb is fully grown, sucking its thumb, sometimes having a bowel movement, reacting to stimulus, reacting to sounds like the sound of its mothers voice, it's not a baby, not a person, not a human being and if it's mother chooses she can decide to kill it, but once it passes through an inches long canal and emerges then it becomes a baby a person a human being and she can no longer kill it.
Why? I mean why can she now not kill it?
Because she can see it?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No, till then its continued life is dependant on a risk to the health or life of another person, the mother.

Well so is a baby five minutes later, or several years later for that matter. What's your point?

gizmo81 wrote: »

I did not give you consent to put words in my mouth. Is consent that alien of a concept to you?

AHhahahahhahahhahah...awww..... AHhahahahhahahahah

Beyondgone

I'd say (but then I'm a halfwit) that common sense should apply.
2 weeks pregnant? Yes.
1 month? Yes.
6 months. No.
Baby has congenital defects? Yes.
You were raped? Yes.

Apart from them few, I'm very pro life. But then I'm male, and as such, I consider that it is none of my business what a woman does with her body, because "not a woman". Pretty much.

So the picture emerging since the 3rd ballot is "repeal and replace", but with the replacement text being an explicit requirement that the Oireachtas is empowered to legislate for abortion, and on the relative rights of the mother and unborn.

Which seems to me to be functionally the same as deleting 40.3.3, aka repealing the 8th.

What am I missing here? What's the difference?

It would take a second referendum to strip the Oireachtas of their power to legislate for abortion and the rights of the unborn?

oneilla

Deleted User wrote: »

Everyone on here arguing either for or against the 8th were once a clump of cells>foetus>baby etc. Evferyone is unique. There will never be a satisfactory solution to all of this IMO......

I'm no fan of absolute statements like this but you've got :
a) people arguing that ending a pregnancy ie. after implantation, is killing babies
b) people arguing for autonomy over what happens within women's own bodies and
c) people claiming ignorance along the lines "oh but what about the sensible average undecided moderate middle ground".

IMO at least one of the three are ignorant of facts around ending a pregnancy and at least one is arguing in bad faith.

njs030

infogiver wrote: »

So the journey through the vaginal canal confers personhood?
While the thing in the womb is fully grown, sucking its thumb, sometimes having a bowel movement, reacting to stimulus, reacting to sounds like the sound of its mothers voice, it's not a baby, not a person, not a human being and if it's mother chooses she can decide to kill it, but once it passes through an inches long canal and emerges then it becomes a baby a person a human being and she can no longer kill it.
Why? I mean why can she now not kill it?
Because she can see it?

You've asked this same question to at least 3 different people now and it's been explained to you very clearly that despite your attempts at emotive language, fetus is a medical term as is embryo.

cinnamony

I am pro choice but I must admit I'm not sure as to what extent the accidental pregnancy/contraception failed excuse holds in a country like Ireland.

You are usually recommended to use 2 forms of contraception and from what I know (please correct me if I am wrong) contraceptive pills/shots implants etc... are not only easily available but free on the medical card.
Condoms are easily available too in stores etc..

So in these cases I'm not sure if there's a pro choice argument to be made barr that people should be able to do what they want with their bodies..

Beyondgone wrote: »

I'd say (but then I'm a halfwit) that common sense should apply.
2 weeks pregnant? Yes.
1 month? Yes.
6 months. No.
Baby has congenital defects? Yes.
You were raped? Yes.

Apart from them few, I'm very pro life. But then I'm male, and as such, I consider that it is none of my business what a woman does with her body, because "not a woman". Pretty much.

Why 6 months no?

Like, consider the scenarios where someone's seeking an abortion at 6 months:

Wanted pregnancies that have gone badly wrong somehow (FFA, etc) - in my view anything that must make a mother want to end a wanted pregnancy so late must be a catastrophic change in circumstances.
Unwanted pregnancies where somehow the mother was unable to access an abortion for 6 months - if we allow earlier term pregnancies this should be almost impossible, so how would this happen? Some sort of weird coma scenario or abduction or false imprisonment?

Beyondgone wrote: »

I'd say (but then I'm a halfwit) that common sense should apply.
2 weeks pregnant? Yes.
1 month? Yes.
6 months. No.
Baby has congenital defects? Yes.
You were raped? Yes.

Apart from them few, I'm very pro life. But then I'm male, and as such, I consider that it is none of my business what a woman does with her body, because "not a woman". Pretty much.

Well here come the hard questions, and abortion asks them.

6 months no, why?
What constitutes a congenital defect? Are you talking about fatal fetal abnormalities or survivable conditions?
Rape is a difficult one granted, but after 6 months does that context nullify the right to life? The baby is no less viable. I get that it's a tough one, but should that baby have less rights then one conceived in a one night stand?

cinnamony wrote: »

I am pro choice but I must admit I'm not sure as to what extent the accidental pregnancy/contraception failed excuse holds in a country like Ireland.

You are usually recommended to use 2 forms of contraception and from what I know (please correct me if I am wrong) contraceptive pills/shots implants etc... are not only easily available but free on the medical card.
Condoms are easily available too in stores etc..

So in these cases I'm not sure if there's a pro choice argument to be made barr that people should be able to do what they want with their bodies..

No form of contraception has a 100% success rate, and neither does the combination of any 2 or 3 or any number of them together.

njs030

cinnamony wrote: »

I am pro choice but I must admit I'm not sure as to what extent the accidental pregnancy/contraception failed excuse holds in a country like Ireland.

You are usually recommended to use 2 forms of contraception and from what I know (please correct me if I am wrong) contraceptive pills/shots implants etc... are not only easily available but free on the medical card.
Condoms are easily available too in stores etc..

So in these cases I'm not sure if there's a pro choice argument to be made barr that people should be able to do what they want with their bodies..

Not every woman can use hormonal contraception, also some medications interfere with them.
Even when used perfectly there's no contraception 100% safe.
Condoms can break, tear or slip off.

Beyondgone

conorhal wrote: »

Well here come the hard questions, and abortion asks them.

6 months no, why?
What constitutes a congenital defect? Are you talking about fatal fetal abnormalities or survivable conditions?
Rape is a difficult one granted, but after 6 months does that context nullify the right to life? The baby is no less viable. I get that it's a tough one, but should that baby have less rights then one conceived in a one night stand?

I did mention the whole "I don't have the answers" scenario in my post. That was just my opinion. Everyone has one..etc etc.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

infogiver wrote: »

So the journey through the vaginal canal confers personhood?
While the thing in the womb is fully grown, sucking its thumb, sometimes having a bowel movement, reacting to stimulus, reacting to sounds like the sound of its mothers voice, it's not a baby, not a person, not a human being and if it's mother chooses she can decide to kill it, but once it passes through an inches long canal and emerges then it becomes a baby a person a human being and she can no longer kill it.
Why? I mean why can she now not kill it?
Because she can see it?

So let's say for example, a woman is 15 weeks pregnant. Something happens her, she's going through an incredibly stressful time and isn't looking after herself, or she's out running and falls, or she's speeding and crashes the car and ends up losing the pregnancy. Why isn't she charged with murder, or manslaughter? Why isn't there a death certificate provided for the unborn?

infogiver wrote: »

So the journey through the vaginal canal confers personhood?
While the thing in the womb is fully grown, sucking its thumb, sometimes having a bowel movement, reacting to stimulus, reacting to sounds like the sound of its mothers voice, it's not a baby, not a person, not a human being and if it's mother chooses she can decide to kill it, but once it passes through an inches long canal and emerges then it becomes a baby a person a human being and she can no longer kill it.
Why? I mean why can she now not kill it?
Because she can see it?

The change is that the baby no longer poses a significant risk to her life or health just by existing. Her right to bodily autonomy is no longer at odds with the child's right to life. They are now largely independent of one another. There can at that point be no justification for the mother to kill the child on the argument of her rights

That transition doesn't confer personhood- personhood is something that develops independently of the birth process. It comes into the abortion argument because it is not present or is diminished at the embryo and foetus stage. Also at the baby stage, but at that point, it is moot.

oneilla

Beyondgone wrote: »

I'd say (but then I'm a halfwit) that common sense should apply.
2 weeks pregnant? Yes.
1 month? Yes.
6 months. No.
Baby has congenital defects? Yes.
You were raped? Yes.

Apart from them few, I'm very pro life. But then I'm male, and as such, I consider that it is none of my business what a woman does with her body, because "not a woman". Pretty much.

I'd err on the side of the vast majority of people using common sense when it comes to someone making a decision to end a pregnancy.

Fair points overall in your post but fwiw noone is "pro-death", some women are "pro-life", some men are "pro-choice". (Putting them in parenthesis just because there's silly semantics over the terms used).

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No form of contraception has a 100% success rate, and neither does the combination of any 2 or 3 or any number of them together.

The typical contraception failure rate is less then 1% I don't think we should be legislating on the basis of those odds for society as a whole, otherwise we'd ban all risk and wrap ourselves in cotton wool.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

So let's say for example, a woman is 15 weeks pregnant. Something happens her, she's going through an incredibly stressful time and isn't looking after herself, or she's out running and falls, or she's speeding and crashes the car and ends up losing the pregnancy. Why isn't she charged with murder, or manslaughter? Why isn't there a death certificate provided for the unborn?

uh, intent? Nobody accidentally murders anybody. Daft analogy.

Beyondgone

Ye lot must be odd, because whenever I'm riding, I'm hoping she gets pregnant. Mainly because I like kids and the whole "Atilla the Hun" angle..

notjustsweet wrote: »

You've asked this same question to at least 3 different people now and it's been explained to you very clearly that despite your attempts at emotive language, fetus is a medical term as is embryo.

Well I called it the "thing in the womb" at 40+ weeks ( so as not to use emotive language) and you are referring to it as a fetus.
Why do we have to play this very silly childish game in which we're not allowed to refer to the thing in the womb as a baby until it's made a journey head first down an inches long canal? Sometimes (in the case of my niece) the journey only took 10 minutes.
Your telling me that ten minutes and 6 inches ago it was a fetus and it's host had an entitlement to end its life but now it's a person and a human being and a baby and a child and heaven and earth must be moved to protect it?
The vaginal canal conferred these rights on this thing?
(I'm trying so hard not to use emotive language. If you've ever given birth it's kinda emotive).

gctest50

infogiver wrote: »

.............but once it passes through an inches long canal and emerges .....

Once ye pass through the registry office, ( and make a mark on paper a few inches long ), you emerge as married couple

Amazing innit

LexieOnRale wrote: »

So let's say for example, a woman is 15 weeks pregnant. Something happens her, she's going through an incredibly stressful time and isn't looking after herself, or she's out running and falls, or she's speeding and crashes the car and ends up losing the pregnancy. Why isn't she charged with murder, or manslaughter? Why isn't there a death certificate provided for the unborn?

You can't murder someone by accident Lexie.

KKkitty

First off I'm pro choice. Being pro choice doesn't mean I want abortions left, right and centre. I want abortions for those who really need them. If a mother wants to terminate her pregnancy let her do it in Ireland. Why have her going on a boat or plane to a different country to have it done. There's many reasons why a pregnancy is terminated but this country needs to get with the times.

gctest50 wrote: »

Once ye pass through the registry office, ( and make a mark on paper a few inches long ), you emerge as married couple

Amazing innit

I don't know what your point is but I'd say you could have another attempt at explaining how pushing a baby through the birth canal is the same as signing the marriage register.

KKkitty wrote: »

First off I'm pro choice. Being pro choice doesn't mean I want abortions left, right and centre. I want abortions for those who really need them. If a mother wants to terminate her pregnancy let her do it in Ireland. Why have her going on a boat or plane to a different country to have it done. There's many reasons why a pregnancy is terminated but this country needs to get with the times.

Get with which "times"?
Who will decide who needs an abortion and who just wants an abortion?
If you can work out who needs an abortion then what day of her pregnancy should she be told " no it's too late for an abortion " or should there be no Day?

KKkitty wrote: »

First off I'm pro choice. Being pro choice doesn't mean I want abortions left, right and centre. I want abortions for those who really need them. If a mother wants to terminate her pregnancy let her do it in Ireland. Why have her going on a boat or plane to a different country to have it done. There's many reasons why a pregnancy is terminated but this country needs to get with the times.

What qualifies "who really need them" though? It's a pretty broad statement to make when a life is in the balance.

conorhal wrote: »

The typical contraception failure rate is less then 1% I don't think we should be legislating on the basis of those odds for society as a whole, otherwise we'd ban all risk and wrap ourselves in cotton wool.

The rate of road fatalities in Ireland is 3.9 deaths per every 1 billion kilometres of road travel. Per year, the numbers who die on Irish roads represents about 0.003% of the population.

Those sound tiny, yet we legislate, extensively, to try and protect those lives because once you cut through those stats, it actually equals 100-200 real people who die each year and leave behind a lot of pain and sadness.

I'm not suggesting an unwanted pregnancy is comparable to a death, but the odds you're being quite dismissive of also represent substantial numbers of real people. Of the 3000-4000 Irish women who get abortions each year, you're probably looking at 1000-2000 being a result of contraceptive failure, unless our stats are radically out of line with the international norm.

Those numbers are not trivial.

KKkitty

infogiver wrote: »

Get with which "times"?

The times which allow women of this country the right to choose what happens with their own bodies obviously.