nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

volchitsa

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Maybe its not as contentious because the one life that is being ended gets to choose. There are ethical dilemmas around euthanasia. Would you restrict it to terminal patients, or allow those with depression to end their lives also?

Of course there are ethical dilemmas around euthanasia too, but it's not the case that the persons whose life is being ended always get to choose : in many cases the person has left no official record, so it all depends on what the family say he/she would have wanted had they known this would happen.

In the case of abortion, the question is whether the life that is being ended is at a stage where it is capable of having any capacity for any sort of wishes or choice at all, never mind a choice about its life or death. Since there is a living breathing person involved, the pro choice argument is that one would need to be very sure that there is any reason to "consult" the fetus inside her about her decision before preventing her from acting on her decision.

nozzferrahhtoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Maybe its not as contentious because the one life that is being ended gets to choose.

Ah perhaps you are not up on the Euthanasia debate but in fact what you describe above is not always the case. Very often the debate discusses situations where medical personnel or medical proxies are left with the decision.

Often, but not always, the patient has left some kind of instructions. But like with many things in law the instructions do no cover every scenario or eventuality. And then it could fall to medical professionals, or the patients medical proxy, to interpret those instructions.

But a fetus at 12 or 16 weeks is not a decision making entity. Not because it is to young or lacks the ability. It lacks the entire faculty that underpins being an entity that can or would make decisions. Therefore you are kind of making the point for me with your sentence above. Abortion of a 12 week fetus should not BE contentious, because the only entity that is a decision making entity in the equation IS the mother. The Fetus is not.

SafeSurfer

seamus wrote: »

I love when people throw in the "what about euthanasia!!!" argument like it's some kind of argument-killer. Euthanasia is several times less contentious and less ethically fraught than abortion. The common thread of course being the individual's right to choose.

So I guess it's no surprise that people who are anti-choice see euthanasia as an argument-killer, when in reality it only strengthens any pro-choice argument.

Maybe its not as contentious because the one life that is being ended gets to choose. There are ethical dilemmas around euthanasia. Would you restrict it to terminal patients, or allow those with depression to end their lives also?

seamus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There are complexities in the right to die debate that I think are not conveyed in your question here but in general yes, I do think people should have the right to die under their own choice or some set of pre-determined measures.

I love when people throw in the "what about euthanasia!!!" argument like it's some kind of argument-killer. Euthanasia is several times less contentious and less ethically fraught than abortion. The common thread of course being the individual's right to choose.

So I guess it's no surprise that people who are anti-choice see euthanasia as an argument-killer, when in reality it only strengthens any pro-choice argument.

FutureGuy

RobertKK wrote: »

I have a sister who was told she had FFA and the baby would die soon after birth, a nurse in Dublin suggested about getting rid of the pregnancy...she had a good doctor who supported her, the child was born in Dublin, taken to Crumlin and is now living a normal life and plays sports.
The arguments used for FFA are as if a diagnosis is black and white, when it is grey.

Out of interest, what was the name of the FFA that she was initially diagnosed with and what testing was done to come to that diagnosis?

nozzferrahhtoo

Sweetemotion wrote: »

All I hear from the pro choice side is. "That it's just a clump of cells and it's not life till it can survive outside of the womb"

If that is all you hear, then that can only be due to selective attention on your own part because there are a WEALTH of argument out there that do not fit what you have described.

I myself for example have posted on many threads, this one included, on how I do not think viability (survival outside the womb) is a coherent or useful measure for the cut off of abortion rights. Not least because, under the progress of human science, it is a moving target. I actually suspect/expect that we are not far from the point where wombs are not just slightly, but ENTIRELY, superfluous to requirements in human reproduction.

So if you want to hear more from the pro choice side, I recommend that you start actually listening. Without filter.

That said however........

Sweetemotion wrote: »

A one year old baby can't survive on it's own outside off the womb. Is that baby still a clump of cells?

............ you are misrepresenting the viability argument here. The 1 year old baby will not survive without care, true. But nor will many premature babies survive outside the womb without the care of our modern medical advances.

That is NOT what the viability argument is about.

The viability argument is about at what point, under care, a baby can survive without the womb. This is a poor argument for abortion in my view, but at least it is a coherent one. No baby, premature or otherwise is going to survive without care at all as you point out.

So you and I agree that viability is a poor mediation point for abortion cut offs. But I fear you disagree with an incomplete and inaccurate version of that argument which I recommend you correct.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Life is life

Is it though? You use paper I assume, with little regard for the trees that were hacked down to make it. If you are not a vegetarian or maybe even vegan (I am neither) than it would seem there is a lot more going on in your morality than a mere "life is life". Viruses and Bacteria could be said to be life, but I suspect you likely take anti virals, anti bacterials, and use such in cleaning all the time. The list goes on, but I think you will find that "life is life" is not actually a philosophy you likely live by. Unless you are a Jain, in which case you have my apology (and sympathy).

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Should a medical professional just kill that child in the best interests of their patient?

No, because said child is a conscious and sentient agent and therefore should be the recipient of our moral and ethical concern. A fetus at 12 or 16 weeks (when the near totality of abortions by choice actually occur) however is NOT in any way such an entity. Not even a little bit.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

How about people in comas with brain damage, should they just turn off their machines and be done it?

Well sure, we do that all the time. There is no "should" in play there however as I think it is the decision of the doctors AND the people who said person has in their lives as medical proxy.

However the difference AGAIN as above is that said coma patient has a fully formed faculty of human sentience and consciousness. Sure, it is currently not operating correctly at the time but it exists and it is there. And as such the patient is an entity that has attained rights, and should be an agent of moral and ethical concern to us.

Again however a fetus not only lacks that faculty, it has never had it any any time EVER up until the point the abortion occurs. This is no small distinction.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What about people wanting euthanasia, should they do that also, no questions asked? Just here you go knock yourself out.

There are complexities in the right to die debate that I think are not conveyed in your question here but in general yes, I do think people should have the right to die under their own choice or some set of pre-determined measures.

nozzferrahhtoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Next the unborn will be looking for rights.

I hope they look for it based on a set of arguments that would not require us to give rights to rocks too then. Because as I see it the concept of rights is linked inextricably with consciousness and sentience which a fetus at 16 weeks simply does not have in any form, in any way.

So whatever arguments these fetuses managed to put forward arguing they should have rights, I can only hope that the same arguments are not equally applicable to rocks which have, I trust you will notice, the same level of faculty for consciousness as they do.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The right not to be killed supersedes the right not to be pregnant.

Sure but at that point it becomes incumbent upon the speaker to define exactly what entities should be allocated that right and on what basis. Clearly it is not a right we assign to ALL life, as our medical, meat, paper and agriculture industries will attest.

So clearly there is some attribute, or set of attributes, an individual entity must have attained in order to qualify for said right. My own pro choice stance, with time limitations, is based on recognizing what those attributes are, and realizing the entity being aborted (almost always a fetus between 0 and 16 weeks gestation) has not at any point attained them.

Unlike many people who declare their position on abortion (for or against) is unchangeable I know mine very much CAN be changed. And I know how. All that is required is a single argument as to why a fetus at, say, 12 weeks should be considered to be eligible for said rights.

After 20+ years of asking, no such argument has been forthcoming. I remain, however, agog.

GritBiscuit

Sweetemotion wrote: »

All I hear from the pro choice side is. "That it's just a clump of cells and it's not life till it can survive outside of the womb"

A one year old baby can't survive on it's own outside off the womb. Is that baby still a clump of cells?

Both wont survive.

Of course a one year old can survive on it's own outside the womb - currently my friend has a 6 week old who nearly goes thru the night without requiring any input from her.

Survival on it's own is generally referring to the ability to survive independently for some (any!) duration, rather than indefinitely without sustenance - a situation which would kill most living things.

We're all clumps of cells when you get down to it. The debate is whether the rights of sentient clumps of cells should take precedent over those of non...

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

.....but I will not question your right to bring up a 2000 year old Greek text .........

You brought up the 2000 year old Greek text

right here :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104999049&postcount=1637

This is the relevant line from the Oath you brought up :

"And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary"

Abortion was legal at the time, the Oath you brought up only mentions pessaries (a soaked piece of wool inserted in the vagina to induce abortion), not the oral methods of abortion also used in ancient Greece.

(Myrrh is an abortificant and emmenagogue - might have been used at the time for soaking pessaries

- easy to remember because the Three Wise Men and their gold, frankincense & Myrrh )

SafeSurfer wrote: »

.............

The World Medical Association left no room for ambiguity in their updated Hippocratic Oath where the agreed text was :

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

and in 1984 ? 2005 2017 The World Medical Association left no room for ambiguity at all with

I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life ;

and you knew this :

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The since conception bit was actually amended in 1984 I believe.

anyway - again, i've seen this carry-on in other threads here - those "little victories" - lol 'tis comedy gold

.

rainbow kirby

Sweetemotion wrote: »

There is also adoption.

Adoption doesn't solve the problem of not wanting to carry to term in the first place or where carrying to term poses an unacceptable risk to physical or mental health for the pregnant person. It's an appropriate choice for some people if that's what they want but isn't the panacea that the anti-choice movement likes to suggest it is.

Delirium

Tigger wrote: »

anti choice ?
anti rash decisions more like

Yes, because no pregnant person in the world ever makes a considered and thought out choice regarding having an abortion :rolleyes::rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

Sweetemotion wrote: »

There is also adoption.

there is. and?

ohnonotgmail

Tigger wrote: »

anti choice ?
anti rash decisions more like

why must a decision on abortion be rash?

Tigger

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you think a 1 year old would be left to fend for itself if the mother couldn't? You have heard of social services, right? Sometimes i think you anti-choice people dont live in the real world

anti choice ?
anti rash decisions more like

Sweetemotion

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you think a 1 year old would be left to fend for itself if the mother couldn't? You have heard of social services, right? Sometimes i think you anti-choice people dont live in the real world

There is also adoption.

ohnonotgmail

Sweetemotion wrote: »

All I hear from the pro choice side is. "That it's just a clump of cells and it's not life till it can survive outside of the womb"

A one year old baby can't survive on it's own outside off the womb. Is that baby still a clump of cells?

Both wont survive.

you think a 1 year old would be left to fend for itself if the mother couldn't? You have heard of social services, right? Sometimes i think you anti-choice people dont live in the real world

SafeSurfer

frag420 wrote: »

So you are ok with amendments then?

Of course, amendments are necessary to maintain relevance. The right to life is always relevant.
It is a question of competing rights. In my view.

The right not to be killed supersedes the right not to be pregnant.

Sweetemotion

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you do make the most ridiculous false equivalences.

All I hear from the pro choice side is. "That it's just a clump of cells and it's not life till it can survive outside of the womb"

A one year old baby can't survive on it's own outside off the womb. Is that baby still a clump of cells?

Both wont survive.

frag420

So you are ok with amendments then?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are being childish in my opinion. You criticise me for referring to the amended "present day" declaration, saying I am trying to make it look like it was done yesterday, when "present day" specifies the declaration as it stands today, because it has been amended many times. The 1948 declaration following WW2 specifies the declaration as it was then.

I don't see what you are finding so difficult to comprehend.

If I referenced the constitution following 1937 as opposed to the "present day" constitution most people wouldn't go all "conspiracy theory", cross between Jessica Fletcher and Colombo on it.

gctest50

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Life is life, If a mother of a one year old can't look after her baby because she isn't physically, mentally and emotionally ready for it. That kid is out off the womb but would die without care. Should a medical professional just kill that child in the best interests of their patient?

......

Should women check themselves into a nice safe locked ward the minute they find out they are pregnant ?

A ward has to be safer than all that driving around and lifting stuff like

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

Why make some odd reference to the 1948 version of Declaration of Geneva when you knew it had been amended many times ?

gctest50, I don't want to turn this thread into a ping pong match between you and me. I referenced the 1948 declaration because this was an attempt to agree an updated Hippocratic oath in the aftermath of WW2.
We were discussing the Hippocratic Oath when you argued
"the author of the Oath may have had a clinical objection to the method, rather than a moral objection to abortion itself"
The World Medical Association left no room for ambiguity in their updated Hippocratic Oath where the agreed text was

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

You question my bringing up an unambiguous 1948 text in my argument but I will not question your right to bring up a 2000 year old Greek text which could be interpreted as being opposed to abortion, which is the consensus, or opposed to only one method of abortion which is your view.

So there you have it. I think its about time we gave this thread back to other contributors. If you want any clarification feel free to pm.

ohnonotgmail

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Life is life, If a mother of a one year old can't look after her baby because she isn't physically, mentally and emotionally ready for it. That kid is out off the womb but would die without care. Should a medical professional just kill that child in the best interests of their patient?

How about people in comas with brain damage, should they just turn off their machines and be done it?

What about people wanting euthanasia, should they do that also, no questions asked? Just here you go knock yourself out.

you do make the most ridiculous false equivalences.

Sweetemotion

seamus wrote: »

Ultimately we need to move away from this idea that a medical professional's obligation is to protect life at all costs.

Their role is to facilitate the best interests of their patient, physically, mentally and emotionally.

And if someone is unable or unwilling to accept that, then they should pick another career.

Life is life, If a mother of a one year old can't look after her baby because she isn't physically, mentally and emotionally ready for it. That kid is out off the womb but would die without care. Should a medical professional just kill that child in the best interests of their patient?

How about people in comas with brain damage, should they just turn off their machines and be done it?

What about people wanting euthanasia, should they do that also, no questions asked? Just here you go knock yourself out.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are being childish in my opinion. You criticise me for referring to the amended "present day" declaration, saying I am trying to make it look like it was done yesterday, when "present day" specifies the declaration as it stands today, because it has been amended many times. The 1948 declaration following WW2 specifies the declaration as it was then.

................

SafeSurfer wrote: »

because it has been amended many times. .............

Why make some odd reference to the 1948 version of Declaration of Geneva when you knew it had been amended many times ?

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

Now we're getting somewhere

You are being childish in my opinion. You criticise me for referring to the amended "present day" declaration, saying I am trying to make it look like it was done yesterday, when "present day" specifies the declaration as it stands today, because it has been amended many times. The 1948 declaration following WW2 specifies the declaration as it was then.

I don't see what you are finding so difficult to comprehend.

If I referenced the constitution following 1937 as opposed to the "present day" constitution most people wouldn't go all "conspiracy theory", cross between Jessica Fletcher and Colombo on it.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

.... I suggested you missed the Wikipedia page text where it says this is the amended version. .....

It doesn't say "this is the amended version "

It says " Retrieved 14 October 2017 "

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

..............

The since conception bit was actually amended in 1984 I believe.

Now we're getting somewhere

A: didn't know it was updated or

B: you deliberately pasted in the version that suited you and hoped no-one would notice

( and reference vaguely )

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

the amended, present day Declaration of Geneva ......

Again trying to make it look like it was done yesterday (14th October 2017 revision ),

been like that for years (since the 2005 revision )

Where did I try to make it look like it was amended yesterday? Really, you have boxed yourself into a corner and are now you just being silly.

It's ok if you are too embarrassed to admit you misunderstood. The since conception bit was actually amended in 1984 I believe.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

the amended, present day Declaration of Geneva ......

Again trying to make it look like it was done yesterday (14th October 2017 revision ),

been like that for years (since the 2005 revision )