The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

AnGaelach · 14-12-2017 05:40PM

spookwoman wrote: »

How is someone you don't know, never met, not even a relation having an abortion going to affect your life? Don't want an abortion then don't have one.

Don't want to tax evade? Then don't tax evade. Don't want to kill someone? Then don't kill someone. Don't want to inject heroin? Then don't shoot up.

The thing is, while you think that soundbit might sound witty, it isn't very persuasive. We live in a society, and we all agree what is condoned in this society. Of course I'm going to care about what you do, because we're both members of this society and the "stop caring about people!!" shíte is a ridiculous libertarian stance. One that should have been left in America rather than imported here by pseudo-intellectuals, capitalists and the self-obsessed.

LirW · 14-12-2017 05:44PM

Which means that you rather want a woman to stay pregnant with all the mental and physical implications carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and gladly take the risk of her suffering from trauma and depression? Even a wanted pregnancy can be the opposite of a walk in the park and leave you in pieces. Nevermind how this would be when it's unwanted.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-12-2017 05:48PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Don't want to tax evade? Then don't tax evade. Don't want to kill someone? Then don't kill someone. Don't want to inject heroin? Then don't shoot up.

As I explained to another user earlier this afternoon however, the difference between "Do not like murder, then do not kill people" and "Do not like abortion, then do not have one" arguments is that in the former case we have moral and ethical arguments against murder.

With abortion however no one, including yourself, are presenting moral or ethical arguments against abortion. You do not PERSONALLY like abortion then? Fine, then do not have one! But that line of thinking can not be made analogous in murder because there are genuine moral and ethical reasons why no one should murder, rather than a handful of vocal cranks being personally against it.

Hoboo · 14-12-2017 05:56PM

LirW wrote: »

Which means that you rather want a woman to stay pregnant with all the mental and physical implications carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and gladly take the risk of her suffering from trauma and depression? Even a wanted pregnancy can be the opposite of a walk in the park and leave you in pieces. Nevermind how this would be when it's unwanted.

Sounds like a very serious situation to risk putting yourself in for the sake of sex. No? I certainly wouldn't have sex if it meant a risk of trauma, depression and leaving me in pieces.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-12-2017 05:58PM

Hoboo wrote: »

Sounds like a very serious situation to risk putting yourself in for the sake of sex. No? I certainly wouldn't have sex if it meant a risk of trauma, depression and leaving me in pieces.

LIFE runs the risk of trauma, depression and leaving us in pieces. We all seem content to keep on living however

The constituent parts of life however, see us making balanced decisions between our desires, and such risks, all the time. You get in a vehicle, you run those risks. You go out for a party, you run those risks.

Each of us balances what we want in life, and the risks of pursuing it, all the time. Sex should certainly be no different.

Captain Obvious · 14-12-2017 06:00PM

spookwoman wrote: »

How is someone you don't know, never met, not even a relation having an abortion going to affect your life? Don't want an abortion then don't have one.

Pointless argument as it ignores the core belief of pro-choice people i.e. that the unborn is a life deserving of protection.

LirW · 14-12-2017 06:01PM

First, sex is a human instinct and people can suffer mentally and physically from abstaining from it. People have sex since the beginning of time and people never had less sex. Abortion is around since the beginning of time and the shadow number of abortion was pretty high as well as the death of the woman undergoing one.

Secondly women who don't wish to be pregnant are on contraception. Yet no contraception is 100% safe.
I mentioned it earlier today, if your BC is 99.9% safe, each time you have sex the chance you'd get pregnant beside being on it is 1:1000. Which is pretty small but not eradicated.

You've ever taken painkillers or had a local anesthetic? They also have very small chances of serious side effects, in the worst case amputation or death. Yet the majority of people choose to take them.

Women are effectively doing what they can to not get pregnant. But sometimes life goes wrong and it happens.

maxsmum · 14-12-2017 06:02PM

LirW wrote: »

Not necessarily true. You'd get offered to assess it at the big scan around 20 weeks. Anything from week 30 onwards is actually more difficult to assess, because there is less space and they might have the cord between their legs.

A blood test from Mum from 9 weeks is available here and tells you sex if you want to know. Google the Panorama or Harmony tests. It's a chromosomal test so 99.9% accurate. I had it and plenty of women I know did too.

LirW · 14-12-2017 06:05PM

They do come for a price though and they aren't made for the gender assessment but ruling out FFAs and disabilities. The gender assessment is a nice bonus from it.
The normal public patient won't find out until a scan shows.

maxsmum · 14-12-2017 06:08PM

LirW wrote: »

They do come for a price though and they aren't made for the gender assessment but ruling out FFAs and disabilities. The gender assessment is a nice bonus from it.
The normal public patient won't find out until a scan shows.

True and I don't think the normal public patient is even offered it, which is another day's work. Listen I don't think for a second that people will be have sex-selective abortions but it is an important test that is available and few people seem to know about it - although I have known 6 pregnant women the last 1 and half years or so and 5 of them had it. 2 were public patients and paid out of pocket.

The friend who didn't have it done out of interest said she wouldn't because she would never have an abortion so didn't want to know if there were any abnormalities - there you go - choice in action!

end of the road · 14-12-2017 06:08PM

spookwoman wrote: »

How is someone you don't know, never met, not even a relation having an abortion going to affect your life? Don't want an abortion then don't have one.

someone murdering someone else doesn't effect me. doesn't mean they aren't wrong. it doesn't have to effect one directly for it to be wrong. if someone is aborting their child based on the sex they are a nutjob, we don't tolerate sexism for children and adults so it should be the same for the unborn.

Crea wrote: »

The logical conclusion of your argument is to force women to remain pregnant when, for whatever reason, they really don't want to be.

sometimes hard choices have to be made to protect others. in the case of abortion on demand, we have to protect the life of the unborn as much as is practical, so we don't allow it bar extreme circumstances. when it comes to someone doing harm to others, we have a duty to step in as society where practical and stop that from happening. so if it is a choice between allowing someone do harm to the unborn because the unborn is inconvenient, or protecting the unborn as much as it is possible, then the unborn should be protected.

LirW wrote: »

Which means that you rather want a woman to stay pregnant with all the mental and physical implications carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and gladly take the risk of her suffering from trauma and depression? Even a wanted pregnancy can be the opposite of a walk in the park and leave you in pieces. Nevermind how this would be when it's unwanted.

the other option is the allowing of the killing of the unborn. as i said, hard choices do have to be made, and while i can safely say none of us do want people to suffer, we do have to decide ultimately which of the situations must be prevented more. for me it is where killing will take place, as much as is practical to do so. yes people are traveling abroad or taking pills here, but there are abortions which are stopped by the 8th.
there are other issues caused by the 8th of course, and i think if there was a guarantee that no abortion on demand would be legislated for in ireland, the referendum to repeal it would definitely get a yes vote.

Hoboo · 14-12-2017 06:09PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

LIFE runs the risk of trauma, depression and leaving us in pieces. We all seem content to keep on living however

The constituent parts of life however, see us making balanced decisions between our desires, and such risks, all the time. You get in a vehicle, you run those risks. You go out for a party, you run those risks.

Each of us balances what we want in life, and the risks of pursuing it, all the time. Sex should certainly be no different.

You're only giving examples of risking your own life. The killing of another life, due to ones choices, is completely different. Thats risking another life for your own needs or wants. If you were talking about Euthanasia of oneself for taking risks with unwanted results then your argument would be perfectly valid. Not sure too many would take that option, regardless of possible trauma or depression.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-12-2017 06:14PM

end of the road wrote: »

we don't tolerate sexism for children and adults so it should be the same for the unborn.

I do not think it qualifies as "sexism" per se though. Wanting to be the parent of one gender or the other seems pretty dumb to me, but sexism is only one of the possible motivators for it.

end of the road wrote: »

the unborn should be protected.

I think sentient entities should be protected and given rights. Non-sentient entities like rocks, table legs, and 12 week old fetuses for me do not qualify morally or ethically for any such protection. So I am all for changes to the current status quo that have us doing so.

Pregnant women however are sentient entities. And I am all for maximizing both their choices in life, and their personal well being, where practical and possible.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-12-2017 06:17PM

Hoboo wrote: »

You're only giving examples of risking your own life. The killing of another life, due to ones choices, is completely different.

Sure, and I hope you remember that next time you have a burger which killed a cow. Write on paper which killed a tree. Or take a medicine which will kill millions of bacteria.

Or you could stop and realize that mere "life" is not solely what we predicate moral and ethical concern on. There is more to it than that. And when you identify what that "more" actually is, you will notice that it is EXACTLY the thing that a fetus at 12/16 weeks gestation not only lacks entirely, but it lacks also many of the pre-requisites for it too.

Hoboo wrote: »

Thats risking another life for your own needs or wants.

Which you likely ALSO do every day. Ever drive a car?

That is what life is, a series of actions which at every turn risk the life or the well being of you or those around you. And life is about balancing our desire to perform actions, with the risk inherent to yourself and others in those actions.

end of the road · 14-12-2017 06:21PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think sentient entities should be protected and given rights. Non-sentient entities like rocks, table legs, and 12 week old fetuses for me do not qualify morally or ethically for any such protection. So I am all for changes to the current status quo that have us doing so.

a 12 week unborn is on the way to being a sentient entity so is not comparible to a rock or a table, therefore it must remain to be given protection as it is becoming a human life.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Pregnant women however are sentient entities. And I am all for maximizing both their choices in life, and their personal well being, where practical and possible.

and that is my view also. however when it effects the unborn, then bar extreme circumstances the unborn's rights must be protected over the choice of the woman to abort it.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-12-2017 06:23PM

end of the road wrote: »

a 12 week unborn is on the way to being a sentient entity so is not comparible to a rock or a table

Except it is comparable. None of them are sentient NOW. You pretty much say so yourself.

Just because you can find differences between three things, does not mean the things are not comparable.

end of the road wrote: »

therefore it must remain to be given protection as it is becoming a human life.

Why "must" it? Aside from saying "must" can you ground that assertion in any way?

end of the road wrote: »

and that is my view also. however when it effects the unborn, then bar extreme circumstances the unborn's rights must be protected over the choice of the woman to abort it.

And as I said that is where we differ. I think people should have free choice when their choice does not impact on the rights of another sentient entity. Since we are agreed the fetus at 12/16 weeks is NOT one, I see no reason to curtail the rights and choices of an ACTUAL sentient entity to protect a NON sentient entity.

Nor are you giving me any other than declaring "must" at me.

maxsmum · 14-12-2017 06:28PM

end of the road wrote: »

the unborn's rights must be protected over the choice of the woman to abort it.

I hear your 'must' and I say no thanks very much to you telling me what I 'must' do if I found myself in dire straits with an unwanted pregnancy. The people will speak anyway. And if it's a no, then I still 'must' be able to access abortion in the UK as previously, so the status quo will continue. You telling me what I 'must' do is still irrelevant.

Hoboo · 14-12-2017 06:28PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sure, and I hope you remember that next time you have a burger which killed a cow. Write on paper which killed a tree. Or take a medicine which will kill millions of bacteria.

Or you could stop and realize that mere "life" is not solely what we predicate moral and ethical concern on. There is more to it than that. And when you identify what that "more" actually is, you will notice that it is EXACTLY the thing that a fetus at 12/16 weeks gestation not only lacks entirely, but it lacks also many of the pre-requisites for it too.

Which you likely ALSO do every day. Ever drive a car?

That is what life is, a series of actions which at every turn risk the life or the well being of you or those around you. And life is about balancing our desire to perform actions, with the risk inherent to yourself and others in those actions.

Life is a series of actions which run a risk of the well being of me and others, sure, but I don't drive a car safe in the knowledge that if it all goes tits up, it won't be me that gets killed, it will definitely be someone else. IF abortion was not an option, but Euthanasia was, would you choose Euthanasia as an option to avoid an unwanted pregnancy? I very much doubt it.

end of the road · 14-12-2017 06:45PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except it is comparable. None of them are sentient NOW. You pretty much say so yourself.

it's not comparable. the 12 week unborn will become sentient if not aborted. a rock or a table will not become sentient ever.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Just because you can find differences between three things, does not mean the things are not comparable.

it does if the 3 things are not comparable. which the 3 different things you mention aren't, as 1 can become sentient and the others cannot ever.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Why "must" it? Aside from saying "must" can you ground that assertion in any way?

And as I said that is where we differ. I think people should have free choice when their choice does not impact on the rights of another sentient entity. Since we are agreed the fetus at 12/16 weeks is NOT one, I see no reason to curtail the rights and choices of an ACTUAL sentient entity to protect a NON sentient entity.

a 12 week unborn will be sentient. as it is going to be sentient iit has to receive protection to allow it to become sentient as it has the right to be sentient. if bar extreme circumstances, the choice of one human being impacts on the right to life of another human being then that choice has to be restricted for the greater good of the human being who's life is at risk.

maxsmum wrote: »

I hear your 'must' and I say no thanks very much to you telling me what I 'must' do if I found myself in dire straits with an unwanted pregnancy. The people will speak anyway. And if it's a no, then I still 'must' be able to access abortion in the UK as previously, so the status quo will continue. You telling me what I 'must' do is still irrelevant.

we are told what we must do on a daily basis, where our choices have the potential to effect others badly.

Zubeneschamali · 14-12-2017 06:55PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm not religious, I'm pro-life. Most of the people I know who are pro-life aren't religious.

That's very odd, because the 8th was opposed in its original referendum by all Christian churches in Ireland except the Catholic church, before you even got to the godless atheists like me.

It is not just religiously inspired, it is not just Christian, it is actually sectarian: Roman Catholic dogma jammed into our Constitution.

Belfast · 14-12-2017 07:26PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Don't want to tax evade? Then don't tax evade. Don't want to kill someone? Then don't kill someone. Don't want to inject heroin? Then don't shoot up.

The thing is, while you think that soundbit might sound witty, it isn't very persuasive. We live in a society, and we all agree what is condoned in this society. Of course I'm going to care about what you do, because we're both members of this society and the "stop caring about people!!" shíte is a ridiculous libertarian stance. One that should have been left in America rather than imported here by pseudo-intellectuals, capitalists and the self-obsessed.

libertarian stance is as far as I know you can do what you like at long as it does ot hurt a some one else.
Taking heroin . no problem
Killing someone that is a problem.
Abortion ? that depends on when you define the start of life. If life does not start till after birth the abortion is just medical service.
if life start at implantation in the womb as define by the Irish courts then abortion is the taking of a human life.
American libertarians as-far as I know are split on the issue of prochoice/prolife

spookwoman · 14-12-2017 08:19PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Don't want to tax evade? Then don't tax evade. Don't want to kill someone? Then don't kill someone. Don't want to inject heroin? Then don't shoot up.

The thing is, while you think that soundbit might sound witty, it isn't very persuasive. We live in a society, and we all agree what is condoned in this society. Of course I'm going to care about what you do, because we're both members of this society and the "stop caring about people!!" shíte is a ridiculous libertarian stance. One that should have been left in America rather than imported here by pseudo-intellectuals, capitalists and the self-obsessed.

B*llox you don't care about my life unless it is something you don't agree with and we don't all agree what is condoned in this society. Some people are against the death penalty and some are for it. Some people want to make drugs legal others don't. If you want to kill someone you better make it the perfect murder if you don't want to get caught and sent to jail but then some like you will ask when is it murder and should all life including the unborn be included when accusing someone of murder
If you think abortion is murder then that is your prerogative, no one is forcing you to have an abortion. But you want to force women to have children they don't want, you want to force your morals and your beliefs on another person because of something you don't like.

Annasopra · 14-12-2017 08:28PM

end of the road wrote: »

someone murdering someone else doesn't effect me. doesn't mean they aren't wrong. it doesn't have to effect one directly for it to be wrong. if someone is aborting their child based on the sex they are a nutjob, we don't tolerate sexism for children and adults so it should be the same for the unborn.

sometimes hard choices have to be made to protect others. in the case of abortion on demand, we have to protect the life of the unborn as much as is practical, so we don't allow it bar extreme circumstances. when it comes to someone doing harm to others, we have a duty to step in as society where practical and stop that from happening. so if it is a choice between allowing someone do harm to the unborn because the unborn is inconvenient, or protecting the unborn as much as it is possible, then the unborn should be protected.

the other option is the allowing of the killing of the unborn. as i said, hard choices do have to be made, and while i can safely say none of us do want people to suffer, we do have to decide ultimately which of the situations must be prevented more. for me it is where killing will take place, as much as is practical to do so. yes people are traveling abroad or taking pills here, but there are abortions which are stopped by the 8th.
there are other issues caused by the 8th of course, and i think if there was a guarantee that no abortion on demand would be legislated for in ireland, the referendum to repeal it would definitely get a yes vote.

Do you think women who have taken abortion pills here should be jailed for upto 14 years?

davedanon · 14-12-2017 08:48PM

end of the road wrote: »

it's not comparable. the 12 week unborn will become sentient if not aborted. a rock or a table will not become sentient ever.

it does if the 3 things are not comparable. which the 3 different things you mention aren't, as 1 can become sentient and the others cannot ever.

a 12 week unborn will be sentient. as it is going to be sentient iit has to receive protection to allow it to become sentient as it has the right to be sentient. if bar extreme circumstances, the choice of one human being impacts on the right to life of another human being then that choice has to be restricted for the greater good of the human being who's life is at risk.

we are told what we must do on a daily basis, where our choices have the potential to effect others badly.

When are you due to become sentient?

AnGaelach · 14-12-2017 09:29PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I explained to another user earlier this afternoon however, the difference between "Do not like murder, then do not kill people" and "Do not like abortion, then do not have one" arguments is that in the former case we have moral and ethical arguments against murder.

With abortion however no one, including yourself, are presenting moral or ethical arguments against abortion. You do not PERSONALLY like abortion then? Fine, then do not have one! But that line of thinking can not be made analogous in murder because there are genuine moral and ethical reasons why no one should murder, rather than a handful of vocal cranks being personally against it.

The "moral and ethical arguments" aren't the same for you, because you view the life of the foetus and the life of a person to be distinct from one another, whereas for us the lives are held equal to one another. To pseudo-quote you, "You do not PERSONALLY" believe there is a moral or ethical argument in regards to abortion. You're dismissing the moral arguments out of hand because you wish to, just as someone who doesn't consider a human life to be worthy of protection dismisses those moral arguments out of hand.

AnGaelach · 14-12-2017 09:35PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's very odd, because the 8th was opposed in its original referendum by all Christian churches in Ireland except the Catholic church, before you even got to the godless atheists like me.

It was also proposed by Fine Gael and opposed by Fine Gael. What is this, Schroedinger's referendum? It does not really matter who supported it or opposed it, the point of contention was that only religious "mentally impaired slaves" are pro-life, which is an utterly preposterous position to hold. One that reeks of misplaced condescension from those segments of society who believe unelected bondholders took down the Twin Towers.

AnGaelach · 14-12-2017 09:36PM

spookwoman wrote: »

If you think abortion is murder then that is your prerogative, no one is forcing you to have an abortion. But you want to force women to have children they don't want, you want to force your morals and your beliefs on another person because of something you don't like.

If you could perhaps tell me what I want a little more forcefully, maybe I'll believe you instead of myself!

davedanon · 14-12-2017 09:40PM

I don't believe foetuses are people, but people can be foetuses.

Just look at Ronan Mullen.

davedanon · 14-12-2017 09:54PM

Heh. I will gladly take one for the team.

REPEAL THE 8TH

Kiwi in IE · 14-12-2017 10:00PM

end of the road wrote: »

it's not comparable. the 12 week unborn will become sentient if not aborted. a rock or a table will not become sentient ever.

a 12 week unborn will be sentient. as it is going to be sentient iit has to receive protection to allow it to become sentient as it has the right to be sentient. if bar extreme circumstances, the choice of one human being impacts on the right to life of another human being then that choice has to be restricted for the greater good of the human being who's life is at risk.

A Zygote will eventually become sentient too if not miscarried or aborted. Is a zygote also of equal value to a born, sentient woman who is carrying it? Can you truthfully say that you think a fused sperm and egg is of the same value as an actual person?

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments