The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So? I do not care what they MIGHT become in the future. I am discussing what they are NOW.

We do not, for example, lock people up for crimes we think they MIGHT commit. Your rights in that regard are GENERALLY based on the present and your past, not your probable future.

The simple fact is the rock, and the fetus, are not those things NOW. So why should they be given rights NOW?

Which still leaves my point unaddressed. A person being euthanized has, at some point in the past, been allocated rights. Including a right to life.

The question is WHEN and WHY did that occur.

I have explored that question myself, at great length, through biology and philosophy and morality and ethics. And I see NO reason to think the event happens on or before week 16 of fetal gestation.

If you are aware of an argument I missed, then you have the potential to change my entire outlook on abortion at the click of your fingers. Which I would do without hesitation, embarrassment, or reluctance.

If you discovered a small malignant tumor would you ignore it because it is not a threat NOW or would you seek treatment because it has the POTENTIAL to kill you in the future?

Are we to disregard the future in moral discussions of other issues like climate change? I'm alright Jack, no floods here.

How about your criteria for the discovery of life on Mars? What constitutes life on Mars?

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

I agree. But it wasn't framed like that at all when it was originally released. That's what I mean.

Aye, but by the time I saw it (and I'd have more FB friends who'd be on that end than my parents or aunts for example.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You would hope. Then Trump and Brexit happened.

There were similar warning made before marriage equality - but the truth was out in the results when a clear majority voted in favour of equal marriage rights for all. Personally I found Panti Bliss a bit tedious in the campaign but that would hardly make me deny people their rights.

Good for you. I also found that whole campaign tedious. Though I was somewhat surprised how mainstream coverage at least showed the Yes side as the calm side. I paid little attention tbh.

Similarly for repealing the 8th. Women are being denied basic medical care and being put at risk by seeking medical procedures in another country or being criminalised by seeking solutions from home. Now, if a silly facebook video means that someone will vote to continue that situation - they were never someone who would have voted to repeal anyway.

So there's no point trying to win people over? Have the vote tomorrow sure?
There's a huge contingent who haven't made up their minds yet. Many of whom will have voted in favour of the amendment in '83. There's a large middle ground of people who don't know much about the 8th or its effects. Having placards with "Stay out of my pussy" or being glib about the issue ain't gonna wash.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is that claim again. That women "are being criminalised", because of the 8th amendment. Who, when, where?
More women are criminalised for abortion related offences in England than in the Republic of Ireland.

This post has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair enough, don't think you'd like the result.

Is there? I genuinely dont think there is. Now maybe Im just off my rocker but given the numbers of women who have travelled for abortions since the early 80s (4000 * 35 = 140,000 and that a conservative estimate), most people in Ireland actually know someone who has travelled for an abortion, and certainly any women of who has been of childbearing age at any time in the past 35 years is aware of the situation.

I mean the effects other than "Abortion on demand" being disallowed.

Even when I spent a summer in the USA working in 1995 people over there knew the situation in Ireland wrt to not being able to have an abortion - so I dont think there are many people who dont know whats going on.

Crossed wires here. If the vote was fully legalised abortion it wouldn't pass. Again it's the muddying of the waters that needs to be addressed. Focus on the people being forced to carry to term when there's no chance of survival etc.
Side note: I would guess there are people who don't see that as an issue because they've seen cases where doctors (shock) broke the law in cases where there was no chance of survival. Obviously it's hush-hush but a couple of older ladies I spoke to found the Sativa case very odd because they saw women be induced very, very early to get things sorted properly.

I cant say ive seen a placard saying "Stay out of my pussy" - have you seen an example of this? I agree its a silly slogan, and might offend some, but where are you seeing them? Even googling the exact phrase doesnt bring up any images of a placard saying that.

I saw pussy and **** on placards at one of the recent protests, along with humourous innuendo and single-entendres.

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

seenitall

....... wrote: »

I cant say ive seen a placard saying "Stay out of my pussy" - have you seen an example of this? I agree its a silly slogan, and might offend some, but where are you seeing them? Even googling the exact phrase doesnt bring up any images of a placard saying that.

Maybe he means the "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries" one? Or the "Hey, holy chaps, keep off my flaps"?

This post has been deleted.

kylith

SafeSurfer wrote: »

There is that claim again. That women "are being criminalised", because of the 8th amendment. Who, when, where?
More women are criminalised for abortion related offences in England than in the Republic of Ireland.

The fact that no-one has, of yet, been prosecuted is neither here nor there. The fact that they legally can be prosecuted is the issue.

It is simply the fact that, in Ireland in the 21st century, a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape and procures an abortion LEGALLY CAN be sent to jail for longer than the person who raped her. That is a despicable thing.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You seem entirely ignorant of the reality of the 8th Amendment - I respectfully suggest you educate yourself.

From here:

In this State, the 2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act repealed section 58 of the 1861 Act, replacing it with a prison sentence of up to 14 years for anyone unlawfully procuring an abortion here.
Anyone who helps a woman or girl to unlawfully procure an abortion can face a similar sentence.

Here:

It is illegal to procure an abortion in Ireland outside of the circumstances specified in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013.

Here:

You can get it here in the State, you can also get 14 years for procuring it, for taking it and for helping yourself to have an abortion at home.

Here:

People who procure an abortion in the State risk 14 years imprisonment.

If you need more information I suggest you use Google - plenty available.[/quote]

With respect I think that it is you who are entirely ignorant of the 8th amendment and it's criminalising effect.
Do you think someone can be jailed for breaking the 8th amendment?

You posted 4, yes 4 links which don't show anyone who was been criminalised by abortion law in Ireland.
The poster I was replying to said women were "being criminalised", not had the potential to be criminalised.

If someone told me breakfast was "being served" in the dining room and there wasn't a sausage in sight I would rightfully conclude they were mistaken.

This post has been deleted.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If you discovered a small malignant tumor would you ignore it because it is not a threat NOW

No because I am not ignorant of basic medical science and I know such a tumor IS a threat NOW. The clue is in the word "malignant".

But you are not getting the point I was conveying. I am not advocating ignoring everything about the future. That would be ridiculous.

But when it comes to affording moral and ethical concern to an entity that is in front of me, I need a basis to do so. And "it might be sentient some day" is just a statement that tells me it is not NOW. I do not see allocating rights NOW to something that MIGHT one day qualify for them as being coherent. Just as incoherent as me saying you should have no rights NOW because in all likelihood you will be long dead in the future. Why would I allocate it on the basis of potential rather than remove it on the basis of potential. Makes no sense to me.

And that is just in isolation. But the fetus is not in isolation. It is inside a moral agent for whom we SHOULD have moral and ethical concern.

So not only do I see no reason to give a fetus rights, I certainly do not see any reason to give it rights that over ride the right of choice of the mother.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

Whatever about the pro-choice side, it's the middle that needs to be won over. And the "shrillness" will cost votes if it continues. FFS I saw someone post a video with the title "The 8 most annoying things about being pregnant" with #RepealThe8th after it. Who is that going to win over?

That's the exact same argument that was made time and again during the SSM referendum to be fair, and we saw exactly how that turned out.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You cannot provide one example of anyone criminalised as a result of the 8th amendment.

How about a deal,

Pro choice posters stop dismissing late term abortions as irrelevant because they rarely happen and I will stop dismissing the emotive 14 year jail term argument because it NEVER happens.

Also the POTENTIAL life of the unborn has been dismissed by repealers while the POTENTIAL imprisonment of those procuring abortions is highlighted. To me this is hypocrisy and double standards.

I also find it interesting that whenever difficult questions are asked pro choicers fret about the thread being shut down, despite us directly discussing the 8th amendment as in the thread title.

sunshine and showers

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You cannot provide one example of anyone criminalised as a result of the 8th amendment.

How about a deal,

Pro choice posters stop dismissing late term abortions as irrelevant because they rarely happen and I will stop dismissing the emotive 14 year jail term argument because it NEVER happens.

Also the POTENTIAL life of the unborn has been dismissed by repealers while the POTENTIAL imprisonment of those procuring abortions is highlighted. To me this is hypocrisy and double standards.

I also find it interesting that whenever difficult questions are asked pro choicers fret about the thread being shut down, despite us directly discussing the 8th amendment as in the thread title.

Depends entirely on what you mean by "late term abortion".

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Also the POTENTIAL life of the unborn has been dismissed by repealers while the POTENTIAL imprisonment of those procuring abortions is highlighted. To me this is hypocrisy and double standards.

Well I personally have not discussed what is or is not criminal, let alone dismissed it. But I would point out that the potential life is just that..... a potential. Whereas when one is talking about potential imprisonment in some context or other one is likely therefore talking about something that is currently ACTUALLY a crime, which is not a potential.

So I am not seeing any hypocrisy or double standards there. one is a potential, the other is a current actual.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I also find it interesting that whenever difficult questions are asked pro choicers fret about the thread being shut down, despite us directly discussing the 8th amendment as in the thread title.

Again as a pro choice person I have not fretted about any such thing myself on here. So be wary as you might come across as sweeping the brush a little two wide.

But since you bring it up, I am personally.... interested.... with how boards will choose to deal with the coming string of threads I expect the abortion debate to generate in the coming months. Will they shut it down? Merge it into a mega thread? Engage in extreme or no moderating?

I would be genuinely surprised if it is not a hot topic in the back rooms of the mod team as we speak.

The Legend Of Kira

( Seen this photo elsewhere )

Over the last month we have seen 3 pro life public meetings get canceled due to pressure & threats, we also people tearing down pro life posters in Cork + Dublin, now a pro life van gets vandalised in the photo you can see white paint splashed over parts of the van + repeal painted on the van in white paint. whoever vandalised this van is not doing their side any favours.

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

whoever vandalised this van is not doing their side any favours.

That would, possibly, depend on which "side" the vandal in question is on? I would certainly not assume it either way when we see, as we likely will, such "attacks" on the posters and properties of BOTH sides.

Birdie Num Num

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well I personally have not discussed what is or is not criminal, let alone dismissed it. But I would point out that the potential life is just that..... a potential. Whereas when one is talking about potential imprisonment in some context or other one is likely therefore talking about something that is currently ACTUALLY a crime, which is not a potential.

So I am not seeing any hypocrisy or double standards there. one is a potential, the other is a current actual.

Apologies as I am just new to this thread and just stubbled across your post but you really are mixing someone else's words around there to suit your angle.

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

Apologies as I am just new to this thread and just stubbled across your post but you really are mixing someone else's words around there to suit your angle.

If you say so, but having just joined the thread you might not be aware that the practice of declaring someone is doing something (mixing words, being dishonest, or whatever) without THEN showing how and where and why you think they are doing it........... is so common a move that I doubt anyone is fooled by it any more. I am not m ixing someone else's words solely because you have waltzed in and declared it to be so.

But I see nothing inaccurate in what I said, so do help me out with your thinking here.

When one is discussing the POTENTIAL life of a fetus, in the sense of "human life" or "person hood" then one is doing just that.......... discussing a potential.

If however one is discussing the potential that they might be imprisoned for a crime, then they are likely discussing an ACTUAL crime that is CURRENTLY in the legal doctrines. That is not a potential, that is something that is actual, current, and real.

Quite a difference, doncha think?

captbarnacles

Had the first door to door campaigners this week from the save the 8th side and they were mostly pleasant, one walked off when I said I'd be voting to repeal and the other stayed to discuss. The discussion was mainly her trying to convince me abortions at 8 months plus happen all the time in England including for D babies. A man came over to join her after awhile. Both said they would imprison a suicidal girl if she wanted to go to England no matter how she became pregnant but they would send the offending father to jail forever as if that balanced it out?