A Little Pony wrote: » The child should not be murdered because a moron (in 'normal' abortions) didn't take precautions. Absolutely it should go ahead. It isn't the child's fault his/her mother is a complete idiot.
Parchment wrote: » A Little Pony wrote: » Yes they should be. If you can't take responsibility you must face the consequences. People are smart enough to know now that unsafe sex brings the risk of pregnancy. Time for personal responsibility. So a child should be born to teach them a lesson?
A Little Pony wrote: » Yes they should be. If you can't take responsibility you must face the consequences. People are smart enough to know now that unsafe sex brings the risk of pregnancy. Time for personal responsibility.
AtomicHorror wrote: » A Little Pony wrote: » ricero wrote: » Liberals are trying to ruin this countries morality. I for one will not vote in abortion to be used as a easy fix for hussies who forget to use contraception Fully agree. People don't like personal responsibility in society now. It's everyone else fault now. Slave moralists. Pitiable. What is morality if it is laid out for you in a set of rigid rules and laws? In what way is following such rules- regardless of context- "taking responsibility"? You are both afraid of the responsibility of figuring out right from wrong without a guidebook. You need immutable laws, not so that you can take responsibility, but so that the hard choices never had to be made. Just obeying the law, just following orders. The "hussies" who have to make the hard choices about their pregnancy, health and life are the ones taking personal responsibility, the ones taking the time to really weigh the morality of circumstances that they alone can fully appraise. And they are the ones who will have to live with the full consequences. I doubt either of you could take responsibility for picking desert from a menu.
A Little Pony wrote: » ricero wrote: » Liberals are trying to ruin this countries morality. I for one will not vote in abortion to be used as a easy fix for hussies who forget to use contraception Fully agree. People don't like personal responsibility in society now. It's everyone else fault now.
ricero wrote: » Liberals are trying to ruin this countries morality. I for one will not vote in abortion to be used as a easy fix for hussies who forget to use contraception
Akrasia wrote: » A Little Pony wrote: » Fully agree. People don't like personal responsibility in society now. It's everyone else fault now. Yeah, let's punish irresponsible 'hussies' by forcing them to have a defenseless newborn baby to raise for the next 2 decades. That's a consistent world view
A Little Pony wrote: » Fully agree. People don't like personal responsibility in society now. It's everyone else fault now.
me_right_one wrote: » ...within the bounds of the 8th.
Article 40.3.3 wrote: The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
Article 40.3.3 wrote: The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state. This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.
Article 40.3.3 wrote: The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.The Oireachtas shall enact law addressing any rights of the unborn, and the lawful availability, in the State, of any services impacting the life and welfare of the unborn. This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state. This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.
me_right_one wrote: » So I'd imagine the wording will change from the current "equal right to life as far as is practicable", which already allows for abortion where a pregnancy is non practicable, ie a health threat, to "equal right to life bar in the cases of rape, ffa, or health up to 12 weeks"... or something like that.
me_right_one wrote: » Maybe it'll be in a new, different section, eg 40.3.4, which says the Oireachtas can make exceptions in the cases of...
me_right_one wrote: » But either way, the 8th will be staying. Any changes the Oireachtas can make will still have to be constitutional.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Exactly, nobody believes that... but they would need to believe that if they TRULY believed in body autonomy in the context --- that's.the.point --- and so not sure what the gotcha tone of your post is all about given that confirming that nobody believes that (as you did) just reinforces the point. lol. Love how this post got so well thanked. This thread is effectively an echo chamber at this stage.Oh and some of those who thanked your post knew well that wasn't my suggestion either Look, the point I was making is that IF someone truly believed that women should be able to do what they want with a fetus given that it is "their body" (the infamous body autonomy argument) then they would have to support women aborting babies at ANY stage of their pregnancy. The point is not made to suggest that there are hordes of women that want to abort babies at 39 weeks for heaven sake and so arguing against that notion is pointless, as that's not an argument I'm making. In short: EVERYBODY with a view on when a healthy woman should be legally able to abort a healthy baby comes down to at what stage of development they feel it is morally and ethically justifiable. NOBODY on Planet Earth (barring the insane) bases their abortion beliefs on body autonomy. It's just a hollow right-on mantra. Four or five years ago in these abortion threads I said that if the pro-choice would just argue for abortion for FFA and and up to 12 weeks then they would have my (and many others) support but they never have. Even up until very recently they were marching and covering themselves in blood, whinging on abort how Ireland cares more for cattle than them, 'get your rosaries off our ovaries', etc etc but now finally this week their hand was forced and now at last we are actually hearing talk about FFA and early stage abortions rather than body autonomy bollox. If the pro-choice would just stfu about women being oppressed and quit making abortion abort their fight against the patriarchy (and the church) as so many of their campaigns have so disingenuously done, then they would have far more people on their side. It's the scurrilousness nature of their actions over the past decade, or more, that has put a spoke in their wheels far more than any one on the pro life side of the debate could have done.
Joshua Steelhammer wrote: » Can you define what bodily autonomy is?
me_right_one wrote: » ...within the bounds of the 8th. So I'd imagine the wording will change from the current "equal right to life as far as is practicable", which already allows for abortion where a pregnancy is non practicable, ie a health threat, to "equal right to life bar in the cases of rape, ffa, or health up to 12 weeks"... or something like that.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Four or five years ago in these abortion threads I said that if the pro-choice would just argue for abortion for FFA and and up to 12 weeks then they would have my (and many others) support but they never have.
NuMarvel wrote: » The amendment proposed by the Assembly won't do that. The Assembly made two sets of recommendations: 1) That we amend Article 40.3.3 of our constitution (which is where the 8th Amendment sits) to say that abortion and related matters about the rights of the unborn and pregnant women are for the Oireachtas to deal with. The precise wording won't be decided until later this year, but that's the gist of it.
NuMarvel wrote: » 2) They then decided on a number of recommendations about how abortion should be legislated for afterwards. NONE of these will be in the constitution, they will only be in legislation. What ever is in the legislation can be changed at a later date; we won't need to go through this rigmarole again.
Joshua Steelhammer wrote: » Whatever about the merits of abortion, anyone who uses the "bodily autonomy" argument is a group think lemming. It is such a stupid argement. And then you have people who think that because you don't want abortion to be legal at say 23 weeks that you think the fetus deserves more rights than the Mother. This is isn't a question of the mother's right to life versus the fetus' right to the life. It is a question of the Mother's right to abort the pregnancy versus the fetus' right to life. So just because you want the fetus protected does not mean you think the fetus is more important than the Mother. I'm somewhat undecided on the issue of abortion, I think it should be legal up to around 12-16 weeks, I don't see why it should be legal much later than that.
volchitsa wrote: » It's hilarious that you're complaining about being misrepresented and then in the very same post you go on to tell people what they must or should really think! Plus all the rest of this complete rewriting of what the pro choice are doing wrong and should really do to get more support from pro life. Oh wow. Lucky you came along to help us, especially as you're perfectly neutral about all this and only want to help. BTW "Scurrilous nature"? Any examples? Because the only one you mention, covering themselves in blood - did that happen in Ireland? I heard it was some Opus Dei psychos in Argentina or somewhere. I certainly don't believe it was a pro choice campaign - why would they do it and then not publicize it? And pro life have form there, including in Ireland. Remember the Youth Defence girl marching with a fake, provocative pro choice banner? funny you've never complained about their real tactics, you just make sh1t up about pro choice ones.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Exactly, nobody believes that... but they would need to believe that if they TRULY believed in body autonomy in the context --- that's.the.point --- and so not sure what the gotcha tone of your post is all about given that confirming that nobody believes that (as you did) just reinforces the point. lol. Love how this post got so well thanked. This thread is effectively an echo chamber at this stage.Oh and some of those who thanked your post knew well that wasn't my suggestion either Look, the point I was making is that IF someone truly believed that women should be able to do what they want with a fetus given that it is "their body" (the infamous body autonomy argument) then they would have to support women aborting babies at ANY stage of their pregnancy. The point is not made to suggest that there are hordes of women that want to abort babies at 39 weeks for heaven sake and so arguing against that notion is pointless, as that's not an argument I'm making. Four or five years ago in these abortion threads I said that if the pro-choice would just argue for abortion for FFA and and up to 12 weeks then they would have my (and many others) support but they never have.If the pro-choice would just stfu about women being oppressed and quit making abortion abort their fight against the patriarchy (and the church) as so many of their campaigns have so disingenuously done, then they would have far more people on their side. It's the scurrilousness nature of their actions over the past decade, or more, that has put a spoke in their wheels far more than any one on the pro life side of the debate could have done.
Icemancometh wrote: » I don't think we understand very well what the ability to form thoughts looks like. Indeed, when do we begin to form thoughts? I've no idea.
Akrasia wrote: » There is always a reason, even if it's just that she doesn't want to be pregnant.
AnGaelach wrote: » They don't have to give any reason so "no reason" fits better than "any reason".
notjustsweet wrote: » My point was that people do have to have a reason and was made to the person making smart comments about hopping on a boat for a no reason abortion without the "inconvenience" of speaking to doctors.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » You're right, nobody believes that.
noaddedsugar wrote: » Have you ever been pregnant for 39 weeks? If you have you would know that no one of sound mind is going to go through a pregnancy for 39 weeks then go 'nah, sod this, I want an abortion'. It just isn't going to happen. If someone does go to their Dr and at 39 weeks and says they want an abortion I would hope that they would be given proper supports in terms of their mental health, that if necessary they be would be delivered early(because as we all know at full term they can exist outside of the womb and don't need the woman to be a vessel anymore). I certainly don't think that the woman should be forced to remain pregnant against her will, if she goes to her Dr at 39wks looking for an abortion then she is obviously suffering greatly.
AnGaelach wrote: » Honestly, I was shocked at how liberal this result was. I was even more surprised to learn it was Sinn Féin and not Fine Gael that took a potshot at the CA about being too liberal. I could be tempted into voting (or abstaining from voting) for replacing the amendment with FFA/rape but constitutionally protecting a right to abortion up to 12 weeks "for no reason" at all is far far far too liberal for me. I'll be voting firmly against any such measure.
Akrasia wrote: » It's to do with personhood. A brain dead person is basically dead because the mind no longer exists. A foetus is not a person because the mind has yet to form. People are not our bodies. You can chop off any part of a person without killing him and he is still himself. But if you damage the wrong parts of his brain his body might live, but that person is dead
volchitsa wrote: » But nobody has suggested that people should be allowed to kill fetuses because they're too expensive or they're fed up with pregnant women getting the reserved seat on the bus or whatever.
volchitsa wrote: » The onlÿ person allowed to end the fetus' life is the woman inside whose body it is, and that is only because she's actually allowed to end her own pregnancy. So it's nothing like someone killing a brain damaged person, unless that person is physically attached to them.
Akrasia wrote: » If someone suffers a catastrophic brain injury with the loss of all cognitive ability or awareness of surroundings then what use is his life to him anymore. That person is dead. If that ever happened to me I would hope my relatives will have my organs donated and pull the plug.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » If that is your conclusion then you have misunderstood what was said.
But for me, if one looks at the developing foetus dispassionately, that's all it was, potential. There wasn't yet a living, breathing individual with thoughts and feelings, with the ability to grow and learn independently.
Also, I support abortion before life (the ability to have independent thoughts) begins but not after.
