Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

kylith wrote: »

So, you're ok with women who are desperate not to be pregnant dying because they cannot access safe abortion services?

It's fair to say that risk of death could be considered a special case, and legislated for accordingly - I believe there are legal abortions carried out here for this reason already. It's certainly no justification for abortion on demand.

seamus wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

So it's ok once they don't know they're being destroyed?

You see, that's applying a level of morals to a scenario where they cannot apply.

It's a bit like saying, "Animals can't give consent, so is all sex between them rape?". Of course that's nonsense, since animals do not and cannot understand consent, so it's illogical to apply that moral value to the scenario.

Likewise the cells you refer to are incapable of thought. Of "knowing". Therefore it's illogical to apply moral values pertaining to knowledge or awareness, to the scenario.

Is it ok to destroy a teddy because the teddy doesn't know you're doing it? Or is it OK to destroy a teddy because it's just an unconscious object?

So by your logic an unconscious human in a coma can be killed without consequence because they are unaware of the fact that they are being killed?

kylith wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

How would I force a woman to stay pregnant? It's all the woman this, the woman that - it's presented as a women's rights issue but I view it from the perspective of right to life.

If it's a toss-up between a woman and a 2cm long foetus with no brain, I'll side with the woman.

Fair enough and what if it's a toss up between a woman and a 10lbs 16 inch long foetus?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Fair enough and what if it's a toss up between a woman and a 10lbs 16 inch long foetus?

You know that most abortions happen before 12 weeks, right? As in, 95%+.

Abortions after that, and particularly in circumstances where the foetus is as developed as you describe, happen for very tragic reasons. You don't get to 35 weeks pregnant and decide you don't want a baby anymore. Something happens - FFA, threat to the life of the mother. Why would anyone want to make that sort of situation harder by imposing forced pregnancy?

thee glitz wrote: »

It's fair to say that risk of death could be considered a special case, and legislated for accordingly - I believe there are legal abortions carried out here for this reason already. It's certainly no justification for abortion on demand.

I'm not talking about women who are dying as a result of illness, I'm talking about women who can and will die as a result of home-made abortions. Even so, 'risk to life, as we saw with Savita, isn't good enough. I am afraid of being diagnosed with cancer if I were pregnant because I would be denied medical treatment until there was a risk to my life. Can you believe that? Being told to come back when your cancer is actively killing you?

Women who don't want to remain pregnant will find ways of not remaining pregnant. Thankfully these days there's an underground railroad for safe abortion pills, in earlier times it was gin and a hot bath, a fall down some stairs, or a knitting needle. If the gardai cut off the supply of safe pills we will see a rise in women and girls who cannot travel returning to the old ways, and we will see deaths. The number one cause of suicide in teenage girls and young women in Uraguay is unwanted pregnancy, often as a consequence of rape. Thankfully I think we are more culturally advanced than that, but who knows how many suicides of teenaged girls are due to pregnancy?

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I mean your logic that a fertilised egg in the womb of a pregnant woman deserves the exact same rights to her, removing her right to bodily autonomy.

Can you quote where I said that?

I have heard repeal advocates being asked in radio interviews etc, " when should life be legally protected " the usual answer is after birth, so in other words they believe abortion should be legally available up until the point of birth- how many repeal advocates on here also share this view ?

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I have heard repeal advocates being asked in radio interviews etc, " when should life be legally protected " the usual answer is after birth, so in other words they believe abortion should be legally available up until the point of birth- how many repeal advocates on here also share this view ?

I dont , but I think you have to " draw a line " somewhere

what I do believe is that " line" should be the remit of the legislature and not enshrined into any constitution which is not the purpose of a constitution.

the decision on the ultimate form of termination of pregnancy is complex and best handled by public discussion and legislation

BoatMad wrote: »

for me , repeal the 8th, has nothing to do with abortion. For me , its to rid the constitution of a sectional interest that seeks to enshrine moral perspectives, locked in an epoch , against the wishes of the legislature and by extension the people that elected them. Much damage has been done too the Irish people on the back off such interests in the 1928 constitution and we have been amending since to repeal such aspects. its unfortunate that we added some more in the recent past and now we have to remove them

The legal status of abortion will be identical the day after the 8th its repealed. Its a very complex moral subject, and laws should and will change over time as the society of the day grapples with the issue.

Legislatures must be free to legislate within a broad, largely unspecific constitution

Bunreacht na hEireann came into effect in 1937.

The legal status of same sex marriage also needed legislative change yet everyone realised what the referendum meant.

For example same sex cousins would be permitted to marry while opposite sex cousins could not under existing provisions, until legislative change.

Bunreacht na hEireann came into effect in 1937.

typo , I ment to type 1938

The legal status of same sex marriage also needed legislative change yet everyone realised what the referendum meant.

????, the issue is that the laws behind same sex marriage can now be defined by the legislature, which is the correct place for them, The constitution should not attempt too place moral boundaries beyond very generic ones ( the all men are create free and equal stuff etc )

Unlike same sex marriages, abortion is a complex subject, there are lots of issues and challenges . The place for that debate is in the society of the day not enshrined by one epoch and forced on other epochs as a result . My adult children should not be bound by my morals, but by theirs

Also its an incipient thumbing of the nose at the democratic processes , as such democratic processes should not be triumphed by simple referendums where complex problems are reduced to sound bites

ELM327 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Feel free not to answer the question.

Does a 10lbs 16inch foetus have more, less or the same rights as a 9mm foetus?

When the foetus is no longer a foetus (ie when it is living under its own power) it gains the rights of being a human.
Until then, it is a foetus.

Point to note, an embryo is the first stage, and it only is referred to as a foetus from approx 9 weeks on.

Thank you for your honest clarification. You realise that many premature babies don't "live under their own power" as you put it for months.
So no rights for them either under your logic?

ELM327 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Bunreacht na hEireann came into effect in 1937.

The legal status of same sex marriage also needed legislative change yet everyone realised what the referendum meant.

Yes and the council of bishops and Dev managed to make our constitution more restrictive and non-secular compared to the earlier variant.

Of course there is legislative change required with any constitutional change.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

For example same sex cousins would be permitted to marry while opposite sex cousins could not under existing provisions, until legislative change.

Ill informed mumbo jumbo. I saw a hand written sign in Cahirciveen before the election, "2 bulls can't make a steer, vote no". Is that you?

That was one of the changes required because the marriage restrictions were gender specific. Such as man may not marry his niece whereas his nephew wasn't specified.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The reason some provisions are included in the constitution are precisely so that they won't be changed by legislation depending on the ideology of the government in power.
If not we could have a situation where same sex marriage is legal under one administration, then becomes illegal and then legal again.
Some issues have to be clearly spelled out in the constitution to prevent the law of unintended consequences.

we have many cases in law where something becomes illegal and is reversed etc,and there is nothing inherently wrong with that, people are not infallible ) the constitution prevents retrospective recrimination, which is right and proper

There is nothing to fear from the legislature, it largely follows public opinion of the day , and thats right and proper

secondly

e ideology of the government in power.

no party in ireland of any merit has campaigned for abortion without limits

The 8th amendment has largely constructed precisely on the basis of the ideology of the government of that day and it shows the nonsense of the issue you make

the constitution to prevent the law of unintended consequences

LOL, how'd that work out for us, wed had unintended consequences from referenda all over the place,

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Funny how when anyone references late term abortions they are jumped upon by prochoicers and it's shoved down their throat how most abortions happen below 12 weeks and the accompanying suggestion that it's a nonsense to even bring them up........... but yet here we have it being argued that a single case of suicide a year (not suggesting that number is right) is so relevant that it should influence legislation.

Rare examples only important when it suits I suppose.

No, the point about late term abortions is not only that they are extremely rare, but that they are not comparable to early abortions because they are always, afaik, due to unavoidable medical issues.

Objecting to first trimester abortions for choice using claims that these will lead to late term abortions is dishonest and untrue.

That's the objection to pro lifers "referencing" late term abortions.

Suicide due to unwanted pregnancy, however rare, is suicide, and if even one a year can be avoided by allowing the woman to have an early abortion, then its rarity is not really relevant. A woman's life would be saved. Unless of cours one is going to argue that a certain number of suicides are acceptable.