The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

keano_afc wrote: »

To be honest its juvenile and ignorant to think only members of the RC church are in favour of retaining the right to life.

No, it isn't. I gave a list of Christian churches above who opposed passing the 8th. That list includes every Christian church in Ireland at the time except the RC church.

I see that the Reformed Presbyterian church also support the 8th, and there are several of them in the Republic, but they are a tiny group.

meanwhile the RC bishops:

Her is the Catholic Church telling the Government not to hold a referendum as recently as last August.

Here is the Church of Ireland a year ago:

‘While the Church of Ireland has consistently expressed the view that abortion should be confined to situations of strict and undeniable medical necessity, it has also since 1983 publicly questioned the wisdom of addressing such complex moral problems by means of amendments to the Constitution.

‘Indeed unfolding events and a range of tragic human cases over the past three decades have demonstrated the deficiencies of the constitutional approach. However, we would wish to emphasise that to review or question the value of the Eighth Amendment at this time is not by implication to call for easy access to abortion. Rather, it is to suggest that those complex and hopefully rare situations in which medical necessity might require termination of pregnancy would be more suitably addressed through nuanced legislation. The Church of Ireland offers its good wishes and prayers to the Assembly in its weighty duty of striving to find a way forward in this sensitive matter, so that the rights of both mothers and the unborn may be duly balanced and careful reflection may take place regarding the place of the Constitution in addressing complex moral and social matters.’

The Muslims and Jews likewise say abortion is permissible in certain circumstances, and not the ones the 8th accidentally allowed.

Hotblack Desiato

No. But you can't overlook that they are RCs and taking the strict orthodox RC line.

keano_afc

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Even though ONLY the RC church, of all christian churches, holds similar beliefs?

Even when the people in question are actually members of the RC church?

Even when they vocally supported the unpopular RC church line in the same sex referendum?

And as to insulting, we are talking about Ronan Mullen and Mattie McGrath here, I would find it hard to say anything worse about them than they have said in their own words.

To be honest its juvenile and ignorant to think only members of the RC church are in favour of retaining the right to life.

Hoboo wrote: »

My point is it is wrong/insulting to use the RC whip on people who don't wish to repeal the 8th, just because the RC holds the same or similar beliefs.

Even though ONLY the RC church, of all christian churches, holds similar beliefs?

Even when the people in question are actually members of the RC church?

Even when they vocally supported the unpopular RC church line in the same sex referendum?

And as to insulting, we are talking about Ronan Mullen and Mattie McGrath here, I would find it hard to say anything worse about them than they have said in their own words.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course they didn't say that out loud.

So they weren't toeing the RC line. To toe the line is to accept the authority, policies, or principles of a particular group, especially unwillingly.. Unless they have openly referred to their stance being directly attributed to RC doctrine it is wrong to say so.

My point is it is wrong/insulting to use the RC whip on people who don't wish to repeal the 8th, just because the RC holds the same or similar beliefs.

MrPudding

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I wouldn't trust my brakes if I knew I did something that might make them fail...

You mean using them? Using them might make them fail. That is the point.

MrP

Hoboo wrote: »

Have I missed something or were people on the committee openly saying 'as per our RC beliefs and doctrine'? (I stand corrected and appalled if they did)

Of course they didn't say that out loud.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, those people are toeing the Roman Catholic line on fetuses.

Perhaps you are also unaware that Holles St. had (until recently) a Catholic Ethos meaning save the baby first, where the Rotunda had a Protestant ethos meaning save the woman first.

Historically, this difference is based on the importance of baptism in saving babies from Limbo, which may read like fairy tale nonsense to lots of non-religious folks (and even a lot of Catholics these days since Limbo has been closed, apparently), but this nonsense had the real effect of killing women.

Still kills a few today.

Have I missed something or were people on the committee openly saying 'as per our RC beliefs and doctrine'? (I stand corrected and appalled if they did) Or are they forming their own opinion from their education, experience or personal beliefs. You can have similar or same opinions as the RC, and not toe the line of the RC. Thats like saying everyone who wishes to repeal the 8th is following Church of Ireland doctrine.

kylith

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

To illustrate the first question, think about the second.

When someone suffers a brain injury, they sometimes end up in a state where they are alive in the sense that their heart is beating, their lungs breath in and out, but there is no higher brain activity at all.

We call that brain death, and commonly turn off life support and cut them up for spare parts.

There in that hospital bed is a unique human life, and we terminate it.

IDK if you can do that if they haven't signed an organ donor form.*

Funny how you can't use the organs from a corpse to keep sentient, suffering people alive without their consent, but you can force a sentient, living woman to use her entire body to keep alive an insentient fetus that is incapable of suffering.

*Has that now been changed to the saner 'opt out' system?

Hoboo wrote: »

Reread what I said.

Yes, those people are toeing the Roman Catholic line on fetuses.

Perhaps you are also unaware that Holles St. had (until recently) a Catholic Ethos meaning save the baby first, where the Rotunda had a Protestant ethos meaning save the woman first.

Historically, this difference is based on the importance of baptism in saving babies from Limbo, which may read like fairy tale nonsense to lots of non-religious folks (and even a lot of Catholics these days since Limbo has been closed, apparently), but this nonsense had the real effect of killing women.

Still kills a few today.

MrPudding

Thirdfox wrote: »

The same reason I imagine people don't have problems with letting people talk about marijuana usage despite it being illegal here in Ireland.

If "murder" is legal elsewhere in the world then unfortunately no, you wouldn't be able to stop a murderer talking about his legal experiences in Ireland. You would be able stop him if he commits a "murder" here in Ireland though.

So I don't see why you would be confused about the issue here.

Well, that is just wrong. The reason they are not arrested is that, irrespective of what you think, an abortion is not considered murder. Simple as that. Even where a person breaks the law here and procures an abortion, that is still not murder.

It is not just that abortion isn't considered murder in the jurisdiction that it took place, but also that it is that abortion is not considered, in law, to be murder here.

There are a number of acts that can be committed in a country where that act is legal, but one can be prosecuted in one's home country. Not sure in Ireland, but in the UK bribery and having sex with children is a criminal offence, even where those acts are committed in another jurisdiction where they may be legal.

We get that you think abortion is murder, but the law doesn't.

MrP

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, as I have repeatedly pointed out, every other Christian Church in Ireland in 1983 was opposed to passing the 8th, it is a sectarian piece of Catholic dogma.

You can see a picture of the statement from the Irish Council of Churches on the subject here.

The Council is made up of:

The Antiochian Orthodox Church,
The Church of Ireland,
The Greek Orthodox Church in Britain and Ireland,
The LifeLink Network of Churches,
The Lutheran Church in Ireland,
The Methodist Church in Ireland,
The Moravian Church (Irish District),
The Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland,
The Presbyterian Church in Ireland,
The Religious Society of Friends,
The Rock of Ages Cherubim and Seraphim Church, (Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim)
The Romanian Orthodox Church in Ireland,
The Russian Orthodox Church in Ireland,
The Salvation Army (Ireland Division).

[p.s. you are talking with people who voted in that referendum. A little less eye-rolling might be in order]

Reread what I said.

Hoboo wrote: »

So anyone who doesn't wish to repeal or amend the 8th is Roman Catholic or following RC doctrine? M'kay. :rolleyes:

Yes, as I have repeatedly pointed out, every other Christian Church in Ireland in 1983 was opposed to passing the 8th, it is a sectarian piece of Catholic dogma.

You can see a picture of the statement from the Irish Council of Churches on the subject here.

The Council is made up of:

The Antiochian Orthodox Church,
The Church of Ireland,
The Greek Orthodox Church in Britain and Ireland,
The LifeLink Network of Churches,
The Lutheran Church in Ireland,
The Methodist Church in Ireland,
The Moravian Church (Irish District),
The Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland,
The Presbyterian Church in Ireland,
The Religious Society of Friends,
The Rock of Ages Cherubim and Seraphim Church, (Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim)
The Romanian Orthodox Church in Ireland,
The Russian Orthodox Church in Ireland,
The Salvation Army (Ireland Division).

[p.s. you are talking with people who voted in that referendum. A little less eye-rolling might be in order]

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

the Roman Catholic Church line.

So anyone who doesn't wish to repeal or amend the 8th is Roman Catholic or following RC doctrine? M'kay. :rolleyes:

Belfast wrote: »

if I understand you correctly the right to life should be based on being sentient. at what point do humans becomes sentient? what point are they no longer sentient?

We do not have enough knowledge at this time to point to an EXACT time that humans become sentient. In fact from all my reading of the subject I believe there is no one moment it happens.

Rather it is like trying to find the point where red turns into orange on a rainbow. You can point to places you are sure are red, and places you are sure are orange, but you will never find a transition point.

For the purposes of abortion however I do not think we need to know when a fetus BECOMES sentient (Orange), but when it is not (Red). We can not find a transition point, but we CAN point to the rainbow and say "This is red".

And 98%ish of abortions by choice happen WELL within that red zone. A zone where not just most, but everything we know about human consciousness and sentience at this time tells us sentience is simply not there.

Belfast wrote: »

at what point do humans becomes sentient?
what point are they no longer sentient?

To illustrate the first question, think about the second.

When someone suffers a brain injury, they sometimes end up in a state where they are alive in the sense that their heart is beating, their lungs breath in and out, but there is no higher brain activity at all.

We call that brain death, and commonly turn off life support and cut them up for spare parts.

There in that hospital bed is a unique human life, and we terminate it.

Belfast

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well when driving a car it could by you killed, someone else, or both. But the point is that we take risks in pretty much everything we do every day. Eating could choke you, falling down stairs could kill or maim or cripple you, socializing could infect you. And on and on and on.

Sex is only one of the many things that could have negative consequences. And life is about balancing desire with risk, and making informed decisions. And when it goes wrong, it is about mediating between options on how to move forward. And abortion is, and should be, and option given it is a choice made BY a sentient agent to increase their well being, and it is a choice made ABOUT a non-sentient entity that no one on this thread has argued coherently for giving rights to.

if I understand you correctly the right to life should be based on being sentient.
at what point do humans becomes sentient?
what point are they no longer sentient?

tigger123 wrote: »

I love the way they voted and the quit the committee. Surely if they perceive the committee to be biased, they would have quit a long time ago.

I like this line: “Despite our efforts, and our reservations expressed from the outset, the committee failed to do its job."

They were not there in good faith, they always planned to reject any outcome bar the Roman Catholic Church line.

Belfast

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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?

not accord to the 8th amendment.

The unborn right to life is conditional on the right to life of the mother.

also the unborn can be taken out of the jurisdiction for a termination.

those assisting adults being removed for the jurisdiction for termination are not protected by law. like the case below

First person to be prosecuted for assisting suicide in Ireland describes experience on Late Late Show

A carer who became the first person in Ireland prosecuted for assisting suicide has talked about her relationship with her deceased friend and the times she faced questioning from gardaí.
Tallaght woman Gail O’Rorke was charged over the booking of flights to Switzerland between March 10 and April 20, 2011 for MS sufferer Bernadette Forde, 51, to travel to the Dignitas clinic.
Ms Forde, a former employee with Guinness in Dublin, died at her home in Morehampton Mews, Donnybrook, Dublin 4 on June 6, 2011.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/first-person-to-be-prosecuted-for-assisting-suicide-in-ireland-describes-experience-on-late-late-show-775494.html

Thirdfox wrote: »

while we can make compromises and get even 99.9% of cases right, the 0.1 or 0.0001% of cases where an innocent person dies because of a flaw in the system is reason enough to me to justify my absolute opposition to allowing the state to sanction murder against its own citizens

If I believed abortion was murder, I too would defend the 8th. In fact, I would be campaigning to make the 8th stronger by passing the 12th, rescinding the 13th and 14th, and bringing in legal changes to reflect that abortion is murder. That means women returning from England after an abortion would be locked up for life.

Fortunately, the number of people who really believe that (as opposed to using it as a slogan) is tiny, probably at the level of people who believe the pope is false and only the Latin Mass is real.

kylith

splinter65 wrote: »

A 20+ weeks gestation unborn baby is not a baby?!? What is it then?

And how many abortions are performed at that point? Less than 1%. And always in tragic circumstances.

The VAST majority of abortions are done by 16 weeks, well before viability, sentience, and the ability to feel pain.

Do you think that it is better for a woman to take medication to induce abortion without medical supervision, and knowing that if the fact that she has done so has come to light, for example if she needed medical attention, she could be charged and spend years in prison? Do you think it is better for women to go to back-street abortionists?

Not allowing women to access abortion encourages both those outcomes, as well as meaning that Irish women who have to get the money and arrange transport and accommodation have later-term abortions than they would if they could remain in Ireland. The illegality of abortion in Ireland pushes women wishing to terminate closer to that 'a 20 week fetus is a baby' window that some people find so abhorrent.

Thirdfox wrote: »

while we can make compromises and get even 99.9% of cases right, the 0.1 or 0.0001% of cases where an innocent person dies because of a flaw in the system is reason enough to me to justify my absolute opposition to allowing the state to sanction murder against its own citizens

As I said though, in the biological sciences we have literally no reason to even beginning to SUSPECT that there is sentience or consciousness in play until at least week 22. But in fact there is good reason not to expect it until later. There is no one scientific fact to this effect, but a host of corroborating ones. I offer a single example here however:

"K.J.S. Anand, a researcher of newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM say "intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks. "

The vast majority of abortions by choice, like in the 98% area, happen in or before week 16. This is a 6-10 week buffer, which in terms of biological development is so large that even the "0.00001%" you wrote above is simply not going to occur. Some individuals in our species develop faster than others, no denying that. But THAT much faster? That would be somewhat miraculous.

Caution is always healthy, I grant you that. But caution against the machinations of miracle.... is probably over kill?

Thirdfox wrote: »

I would hope that the pro-choice side equally realise while some on the pro-life side are rooted in dogmatic religious grounds for opposing abortion, many others have thought long and hard on their stance

I will have to take your word for it as I have not been able to tease out ANY such arguments from the anti-choice campaigners in over 2 decades of trying.

It started when I set aside an entire day to go and sit and talk with the people who used to hang out outside Central Bank in Dublin with the stalls and pictures of dead fetuses. I was undecided about abortion at that point so wanted to hear their side. And I was happy to sit there for hours, if needs be, to find out what it was.

Alas after 10 minutes of............ "Look at the pictures man!" "Have you seen the pictures?" "The pictures show abortion dude" "the pictures! the pictures!"............. I realized I was not going to get anything "thought long and hard" from that source.

Since then the "arguments" I have heard against abortion can be summarized as:

1) I am emotionally against it, therefore no one should have one.
2) Sentient entities have rights, the fetus will be sentient some day, so lets give it those rights in advance.
3) "Just coz"
4) Abortion is a liberal thing and I hate liberals
5) God puts the soul into the zygote at conception.
6) All life needs to be protected, except the ones I happen to want to eat, paint on, or get between me and my crops.
7) I do not like the reasons some people have for wanting an abortion, therefore no abortion.
8) The term "unborn child" must mean something, therefore I am against abortion (Christopher Hitchens weirdly espoused this one).

If you can find anything in that list that required "long and hard" thought then I must have missed it. If there is anything missing from the list, I have missed that too.

AnGaelach wrote: »

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.

It must be very uncomfortable to think the lives are equal and live in a society that allows abortion on demand for the price of a Ryanair ticket. To think that many of the women you know are murderers and their families are complicit.

But only a very small minority think that way, and they won't save the 8th.

splinter65 wrote: »

In order to be “pro choice” you have to convince yourself that an unborn baby is not the young of a human being.

Nope, that is not at all what I find myself required to do to be, and explain my position as, pro-choice. Perhaps a better approach therefore would be to allow us to tell you what we believe..... rather than you presuming to inform us what our own beliefs are?

splinter65 wrote: »

These are not people who are about to face up to the mechanics of an abortion.

What aspect of abortion would you personally consider me not aware of, knowledgeable about, and accepting of? I think you will find me pretty deeply informed about the entire reproductive process and every stage of the mechanics along it's duration.

splinter65 wrote: »

Pro choice is all about semantics .
“Lets the fetus die” As opposed to “kills the baby”. Careful use of words to conceal the reality.

Quite the opposite. The anti-choice narrative involves a careful MISuse of words in order to imply things about reality that are not actually true. For example the use of words like "baby" and "murder" are carefully used to imply a sentience and personhood that is not just slightly, but ENTIRELY, missing from the fetus in question.

Not allowing you to misuse terms to distort reality, is not the same as a concealment of reality. We conceal nothing, we just do not let you add your spin to it.

splinter65 wrote: »

A 20+ weeks gestation unborn baby is not a baby?!? What is it then?

When people have abortions by choice, as opposed to medical necessity, they tend almost across the boards (into the 90% range) to do so in or before week 12. By week 16 we are in the 98% range.

So how much relevance exactly, and why, do you think abortions at 20 weeks have really?

splinter65 wrote: »

If abortion is essential for the cause of women’s healthcare then why the need to use careful sensitive terminology about the whole thing.

Because some terms come loaded with implications and emotions that do not reflect the reality of the situation. When we abort a fetus at 12 - 16 weeks there is nothing there at any level that would imply personhood in a way that words like "Murder" and "baby" do.

This is not just true of abortion but also of miscarriage. When a woman miscarries in the 12-16 weeks area her pain at the event can be exacerbated by narratives that simply do not track with the reality. And quite a lot of benefit can be attained by a careful and gentle separation of those narratives from the reality.

AnGaelach wrote: »

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.

Clearly "life" is not held equal to people in general no. The fact our meat industry ends "life" on a daily basis, as does our farming, paper, medical and other industries..... it is pretty damn clear that people do not hold "life" and "person hood" in equal regard.

Clearly there is some attribute about particular kinds of life that makes that life worthy of moral and ethical concern, that people are witholding from other life. And I argue that the ONLY thing on the table as a candidate for what that attribute is.... is the faculty of consciousness and sentience.

If you think there is another candidate for why we value some life over others, both in and out of our own species, then by all means table it for consideration. But until you do your claim we hold them all equally is pretty empty.

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.

That does not mean they are not comparable however. I am confused at this point as to whether you know what the word comparable even means. You seem to think it means "the same in every way". It does not. The simple fact is they are not sentient NOW and that makes a point of comparison.

If a rock is grey and a car is grey they are comparable. I can say "They are both things that are grey". The fact that one has many attributes different to the other does not mean they are not comparable.

The pregnant women however is sentient now, and I see no reason to curtail her choices or her well being in favor of a not just slightly but COMPLETELY non-sentient entity.

end of the road wrote: »

a 12 week unborn will be sentient.

Might, not will. You can not see the future. But either way the word WILL implies it is not NOW sentient. So I see no basis for affording it rights, or moral and ethical concern. Nor are you offering one other than declaring "must" a lot. You are appealing to potentials to declare acuals. And not just in general, but specifically in a case that curtails the rights, choices, and well being of an ACTUAL sentient agent. The pregnant woman.

Nothing has the "right to be sentient". You just invented that out of nowhere. If I build a full general Artificial Intelligence tomorrow and it would be sentient when turned on.... and the only thing remaining to attain the state of sentience is for me to flick a switch.... there would be no moral obligation on me to flick it. I could take the whole system apart and scrap it. There is nothing about sentience that gives any potential agent the right to be sentient before it actually is.

Your assertion implies that I would be morally obliged to flick that switch and that pulling the machine apart again and scrapping the whole project would be a moral wrong. This is your nonsense.

HAVING flicked the switch however and brought that sentient machine online, I do believe I would then have moral and ethical obligations towards it's well being.

end of the road wrote: »

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

When you are aborting a fetus however there is no "other" to affect. It is a non-sentient construct of biological matter with no rights and source of moral obligation.

animaal

I'm undecided on how I'll vote in any upcoming referendum. It's a case of picking the "least worst" option. Whatever the result, I'll be a little sad.

Having said that, I commend the Oireachtas committee. They rightly point out that within the 12-week period, it's going to be impossible to allow abortion in limited circumstances. Any loosening of the law will lead to effective abortion on demand.

Beforehand, I had assumed the recommendation would be for very limited abortion regime, but with the unspoken knowledge that abortion on demand would result.

If all parties to the issue are this up-front, it will add validity to whatever result arises from a referendum.

tigger123

nice_guy80 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pro-life-tds-quit-eighth-amendment-committee-in-protest-464494.html

throwing the toys out of the pram

I love the way they voted and the quit the committee. Surely if they perceive the committee to be biased, they would have quit a long time ago.

But nope; vote, lose, then throw a tantrum.