Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution
Options
Comments
-
Are you ok with slaughtering animals for food? I mean most of the animals we eat have more self awareness than a 12 week human foetus.
They also have more than a day old baby. You seem to have a penchant for including irrelevant arguments. At least you haven't insulted anyone yet. Self awareness is not a necessary precondition to say that something deserves rights0 -
I'm just pointing out that different people have very different ideas of what constitutes murder. I take it you also do not see the killing of animals as such. Many people would view you as a murdering monster for eating meat.Andyfitzer wrote: »They also have more than a day old baby. You seem to have a penchant for including irrelevant arguments. At least you haven't insulted anyone yet. Self awareness is not a necessary precondition to say that something deserves rights0 -
So why don't we ever do like in Central America and try women suspected of having provoked their own miscarriage? Wouldn't that be suspected murder? We already have the legal basis for it, after all.
you would have to ask the dpp that question.
i presume it would be due to the likely hood of there being insufficient evidence to allow for a prosecution.It isn't murder, and that is quite clear.
MrP
technically it is . it's premeditated taking of a life. the state may not recognise it as such but it definitely fits the definition of murder.Killing an animal for food is murder to many people but not to you or me. Killing a 12 week foetus is murder to you but not to me. Or do you not understand that your opinion is just your opinion and not an absolute truth?
no as the right to life for a human is almost absolute. the only time where it isn't is where there is an extreme reason why it shouldn't, such as in the case of the unborn, a threat to life of the mother or FFA.I seem to remember having equally frustrating discussions with you in other forums. I may just stop answering you if it carries on like this.
we never had such conversations no
we had conversations where you didn't like the facts given, which is perfectly fine. people often disagree with me but i just get on with it rather then complaining about them, as people are entitled to their viewpoints.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Premeditation has nothing to do with murder, save that it shows intent. The other requirments are an unlawful killing of a human being, or a human in being, which is a born person. As a foetus is not a born person, it cannot be murdered.end of the road wrote: »you would have to ask the dpp that question.
i presume it would be due to the likely hood of there being insufficient evidence to allow for a prosecution.
technically it is . it's premeditated taking of a life. the state may not recognise it as such but it definitely fits the definition of murder.
no as the right to life for a human is almost absolute. the only time where it isn't is where there is an extreme reason why it shouldn't, such as in the case of the unborn, a threat to life of the mother or FFA.
we never had such conversations no
we had conversations where you didn't like the facts given, which is perfectly fine. people often disagree with me but i just get on with it rather then complaining about them, as people are entitled to their viewpoints.
You personally might feel it is murder, but that does not make it so. One can't simply decide on the meaning of words that already have a specific meaning.
MrP0 -
This is equally true of cows, potted plants and bacteria.Andyfitzer wrote: »Life is such an amazing and mystifying thing, countries are spending trillions looking for it on earth and beyond, and trying to understand it. To me, each life entering our universe must be like a big bang.
Sure, life is an amazing and miraculous thing - but most of us don't hesitate to take antibiotics to slaughter each miraculous instance of Streptococcus that causes us discomfort.
Sure, if you're desperately reaching for an argument for claiming that a fertilised egg is a human being complete with rights, it makes sense to point out that a fertilised egg is alive and has its own distinct DNA. But that doesn't make it a person.A moment must be there like Frankenstein's monster, where life is there where it wasn't before. It can only be fertilisation.
Well, no. That would imply that the sperm and egg are dead, and that life miraculously happens when they meet. But both are already alive, and when they merge to form a zygote, that zygote is still alive, just like a red blood cell is alive.Your arguments are excellent, but surely there is only one moment when life exists where it didn't?
You can argue that because a zygote might (but probably won't) continue on to become a person, that that makes the zygote a person. But part of the zygote will continue on to become extraembryonic tissue. Is this tissue a human being? If the zygote splits to create identical twins, and if the zygote was already a human being before this happened, does that mean that the twins are just one person? Or is this splitting another Frankenstein moment where a life magically appears where it didn't previously exist?
The distinction is between "spontaneous" and "induced" abortion. Spontaneous abortion is usually called miscarriage, but most spontaneous abortions happen without the mother ever realising fertilisation had taken place.I agree about natural miscarriage. To call it natural abortion, though.... is that right? Does abortion not mean some outside agency stepping in?
We go to great lengths to prevent heart attacks, and to help people survive them. If a zygote is as valuable a human being as a grown adult, why don't we go to the same lengths to prevent miscarriages? Why do people who get so upset about induced abortions not seem to care about spontaneous abortions?It is surely akin to heart attacks that take people earlier than others? Some bodies naturally more long term relationship than others?
And you're completely entitled to hold that view, and to never consider procuring an abortion for yourself. The problems start when you impose that belief - and, remember, it's only a belief - on other people, and dictating to women that they have no choice but to remain pregnant because of your personal views.To me, unless the foetus is a danger to the life of the woman (like self defence laws), abortion is murder.
As I've described above, I think it's informed by a lack of understanding of the mechanics of sexual reproduction. No offence.What do you make of the Frankenstein's monster analogy?0 -
Advertisement
-
end of the road wrote: »you would have to ask the dpp that question.
And yet you too seem strangely unmoved by the idea of so many possible murderers getting away unchallenged, never mind unpunished.
Would you be as relaxed about unexplained deaths of thousands of actual children every year?end of the road wrote: »i presume it would be due to the likely hood of there being insufficient evidence to allow for a prosecution.
But there would certainly be insufficient evidence in a case where, for instance, a woman goes to hospital in Ireland for the aftercare we are told they can access freely after an abortion.
Because it's not the same thing at all really to the vast majority of the population, and prolife are well aware of that, whatever the most extreme among them would actually like to do if they thought they could.0 -
And yet you too seem strangely unmoved by the idea of so many possible murderers getting away unchallenged, never mind unpunished.
i have to be realistic in terms of what can be done. that is the reality. it's obviously not realistic to prosecute women for having abortions.Would you be as relaxed about unexplained deaths of thousands of actual children every year?
i'm not anywhere near relaxed about either. both are a huge issue to me. but as i said above, in terms of the abortion issue i have to be realistic in terms of what can be done. at least as things stand the state doesn't facilitate abortion on demand within it and i'm in full support of that.But there would certainly be insufficient evidence in a case where, for instance, a woman goes to hospital in Ireland for the aftercare we are told they can access freely after an abortion.
Because it's not the same thing at all really to the vast majority of the population, and prolife are well aware of that, whatever the most extreme among them would actually like to do if they thought they could.
that may be but it will come down to whether the evidence would be sufficient, the reality is that it likely wouldn't.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
I don't know why you think it is so obvious. In fact I'm certain it's just a complete cop-out on your part. I gave you an example where it would be fairly straightforward as there would be an admission of guilt, and in fact there have been such trials elsewhere. Including just a few miles up the road in Belfast. The first of which led to a very controversial suspended jail sentence, and the second was indefinitely postponed for reasons which were not explained.end of the road wrote: »i have to be realistic in terms of what can be done. that is the reality. it's obviously not realistic to prosecute women for having abortions.
So it seems like a legal approach whereby abortion is in any way equivalent to homicide, never mind murder, is as much of an embarrassment to most people up north as it is in Dublin.
You've given no evidence of this being the case though, as I say.end of the road wrote: »[i'm not anywhere near relaxed about either. both are a huge issue to me. but as i said above, in terms of the abortion issue i have to be realistic in terms of what can be done.
But it's kind of okay for the state to facilitate the same women aborting the very same unborn babies as long as they move along a bit first? Seems a bit inconsistent.end of the road wrote: »at least as things stand the state doesn't facilitate abortion on demand within it and i'm in full support of that.
So not an important enough matter for some pro life group to even try bringing a complaint against a woman known to have imported abortion pills for instance?end of the road wrote: »that may be but it will come down to whether the evidence would be sufficient, the reality is that it likely wouldn't.
Like I say, the attitude seems excessively relaxed, given the claims made about what pro-lifers say they believe abortion to be.
Clearly they either don't really believe what they say, or they are lying about what they want to do to women because they know how few people actually believe their claims.0 -
I don't know why you think it is so obvious. In fact I'm certain it's just a complete cop-out on your part. I gave you an example where it would be fairly straightforward as there would be an admission of guilt, and in fact there have been such trials elsewhere. Including just a few miles up the road in Belfast. The first of which led to a very controversial suspended jail sentence, and the second was indefinitely postponed for reasons which were not explained.
So it seems like a legal approach whereby abortion is in any way equivalent to homicide, never mind murder, is as much of an embarrassment to most people up north as it is in Dublin.
she should have been jailed like all other drug importers. she imported illegal drugs into the country, the fact they were abortion pills should have made no difference.You've given no evidence of this being the case though, as I say.
But it's kind of okay for the state to facilitate the same women aborting the very same unborn babies as long as they move along a bit first? Seems a bit inconsistent.
the state can't stop people from traveling ultimately. unless they have the wrong documentation, or are a convicted criminal.So not an important enough matter for some pro life group to even try bringing a complaint against a woman known to have imported abortion pills for instance?
Like I say, the attitude seems excessively relaxed, given the claims made about what pro-lifers say they believe abortion to be.
Clearly they either don't really believe what they say, or they are lying about what they want to do to women because they know how few people actually believe their claims.
again it's down to the likely hood of an actual prosecution taking place. personally i think while drugs are illegal then all importers/dealers should be treated the same whether it be abortion pills or something else.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Andyfitzer wrote: »If it can't sustain itself outside the womb can it be called "living"?
Its barely a ball of cells until like week 10
Wrong definition of living. It respires (makes energy), grows, moves etc. A two year old child could not survive without help. By your definition whether it is alive or not depends on the medical attention present at the time, which is clearly nonsensical. The only way a foetus will not survive (other than natural miscarriage) is if we step in and take it's life.
Science still can't explain the miracle of life. We are spending trillions looking for life elsewhere in the universe due to its wonder, and we want to take that away from those who have just been given it
Excuse me? ...want to take life away?
You think that there is a wanting to take life?
That's your thought process?0 -
Advertisement
-
end of the road wrote: »she should have been jailed like all other drug importers. she imported illegal drugs into the country, the fact they were abortion pills should have made no difference.
the state can't stop people from traveling ultimately. unless they have the wrong documentation, or are a convicted criminal.
again it's down to the likely hood of an actual prosecution taking place. personally i think while drugs are illegal then all importers/dealers should be treated the same whether it be abortion pills or something else.
Abortion pills aren't illegal, except when intended for use as an abortifacient.
They're used to treat other ailments like arthritis.
But if someone turns up at a hospital after an abortion looking for medical care, the Minister of health has said that she will get the same treatment as someone who is having a miscarriage. Why do all pro lifers (the ones prepared to give their real names anyway!) seem so reluctant to challenge this - if they believe their own claims about abortion that is?0 -
Excuse me? ...want to take life away?
You think that there is a wanting to take life?
That's your thought process?
unless it's for the reasons of FFA or there is a genuine threat to the mother's life which is a case of have to take a life, then yes it's a want to take a life.Abortion pills aren't illegal, except when intended for use as an abortifacient.
They're used to treat other ailments like arthritis.
But if someone turns up at a hospital after an abortion looking for medical care, the Minister of health has said that she will get the same treatment as someone who is having a miscarriage. Why do all pro lifers (the ones prepared to give their real names anyway!) seem so reluctant to challenge this - if they believe their own claims about abortion that is?
you would have to ask those people. those of us on the pro-life side have a number of differing viewpoints on various aspects of the debate. we only ultimately agree on the main point that abortion on demand has no place in ireland.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
-
end of the road wrote: »unless it's for the reasons of FFA or there is a genuine threat to the mother's life which is a case of have to take a life, then yes it's a want to take a life.
So just to be clear, someone who uses contraception because a pregnancy would be a disaster for them at that point in their life, you're okay with that, right? That's being responsible, not "wanting to take a life", right?
But if the contraception fails, and the same couple decide to terminate that pregnancy immediately, then it's fair to accuse them of some strange desire to "take life" for the sake of taking life or something?
Really? Aren't they just the same couple with the same problem as a month before, only rather more urgent now?0 -
end of the road wrote: »you would have to ask those people. those of us on the pro-life side have a number of differing viewpoints on various aspects of the debate. we only ultimately agree on the main point that abortion on demand has no place in ireland.
So just a cop out from you then.
Have you personally reported Deirdre Conroy or Tara Flynn for instance?
Or are you spoofing on here but unwilling to make even the tiniest effort to act in real life?0 -
So just to be clear, someone who uses contraception because a pregnancy would be a disaster for them at that point in their life, you're okay with that, right? That's being responsible, not "wanting to take a life", right?
yes absolutely, i'm fine with that.But if the contraception fails, and the same couple decide to terminate that pregnancy immediately, then it's fair to accuse them of some strange desire to "take life" for the sake of taking life or something?
absolutely. because that's what it is, the taking of a life for the sake of it. there is no threat to the mother.Really? Aren't they just the same couple with the same problem as a month before, only rather more urgent now?
the same couple yes . however they now have a life on the way but they want to have it killed, which is a problem.So just a cop out from you then.
Have you personally reported Deirdre Conroy or Tara Flynn for instance?
Or are you spoofing on here but unwilling to make even the tiniest effort to act in real life?
no copout, just someone who is realistic.. i am doing my bit by supporting the state not facilitating abortion on demand in ireland, and by voting no to repeal of the 8th due to the refusal to guarantee against abortion on demand being legislated for, for which had that happened i would vote to repeal.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Andyfitzer wrote: »
It's not really worth discussing with someone who has constructed a narrative in their own heads that this is about wanting to take life.0 -
It's not really worth discussing with someone who has constructed a narrative in their own heads that this is about wanting to take life.
the problem is it's not a narrative but a fact. if someone wants an abortion on demand they want to take the life. they are not being forced to take the life, they are choosing to do it.
where your view is correct is in the case of FFA or where there is a threat to the mother's life, where the life is been taken out of necessity.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »This is equally true of cows, potted plants and bacteria.
Sure, life is an amazing and miraculous thing - but most of us don't hesitate to take antibiotics to slaughter each miraculous instance of Streptococcus that causes us discomfort.
No, this is the natural consequence of self preservation. All animals will naturally do that. We deem humans to be a level above that form of life due to self awareness etc.
Sure, if you're desperately reaching for an argument for claiming that a fertilised egg is a human being complete with rights, it makes sense to point out that a fertilised egg is alive and has its own distinct DNA. But that doesn't make it a person. Well, no. That would imply that the sperm and egg are dead, and that life miraculously happens when they meet. But both are already alive, and when they merge to form a zygote, that zygote is still alive, just like a red blood cell is alive.
Steady with the "desperation". I'll forgive you as it's an outlier from your normal attitude 😉
I suppose that I'm more considering the creation of a human, and have been clumsy in my expression of what I mean. This can be a problem for me (clumsy expression).
You can argue that because a zygote might (but probably won't) continue on to become a person, that that makes the zygote a person. But part of the zygote will continue on to become extraembryonic tissue. Is this tissue a human being? If the zygote splits to create identical twins, and if the zygote was already a human being before this happened, does that mean that the twins are just one person? Or is this splitting another Frankenstein moment where a life magically appears where it didn't previously exist?
A most excellent point which I need to consider further.
The distinction is between "spontaneous" and "induced" abortion. Spontaneous abortion is usually called miscarriage, but most spontaneous abortions happen without the mother ever realising fertilisation had taken place. We go to great lengths to prevent heart attacks, and to help people survive them. If a zygote is as valuable a human being as a grown adult, why don't we go to the same lengths to prevent miscarriages?
Well, we do. Lots of research there, but such a difficult thing to do due to the scale.
Why do people who get so upset about induced abortions not seem to care about spontaneous abortions?
Ah, but they do. It's just such a natural thing, not much to debate. Here we can stop people doing something deemed immoral by some.
And you're completely entitled to hold that view, and to never consider procuring an abortion for yourself. The problems start when you impose that belief - and, remember, it's only a belief - on other people, and dictating to women that they have no choice but to remain pregnant because of your personal views.
Societal personal views make up the morality we government by. In that context, and that of this discussion, I'm entirely entitled.
As I've described above, I think it's informed by a lack of understanding of the mechanics of sexual reproduction. No offence.
No offence taken. Some very interesting points, though I disagree with a fair portion.0 -
Andyfitzer wrote: »No offence taken. Some very interesting points, though I disagree with a fair portion.
I'm new to this, and most of my responses are in the quoted content above this. #fail!!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
end of the road wrote: »that's not comparible to the issue of protections for the unborn though. either the unborn has rights or it doesn't. that's ultimately what it comes down to.
Of course the unborn have rights. Animals have rights, plants have rights, humans have rights, etc.
What matters is where those rights appear in a heirarchy of rights, as not all rights are equal.0 -
Andyfitzer wrote: »
It's just too outlandish a position for me really. And too fundamental. Your position is that of someone who thinks that there are women and men who are seeking to advance a position based on a want to take life. It's a very dim light to hold people in. I find it's best to debate with someone when I can at least begin to understand their point of view. You can call that an echo chamber if you like.0 -
I mean you didn't exactly try and offer any evidence yourself to discredit the idea.
Typically people who are exceptionally pro-life, are also economically conservative, as I know you are yourself. That means low public spending in education, cut child benefit, cut health services. All of these things make it exceptionally difficult to raise a child in this country. This is added to funding really poor forms of sexual education which ultimately lead to more children being born who won't be looked after adequately.
I mean it really comes down to what your values are. A bunch of cells barely larger than a few hairs, or a living person who has to go through the traumatic process of pregnancy?
I don't think that is a hard question.
It's is a hard question if you don't believe they are just a bunch of cells. The born human can argue with you, jump up and down. Easy to acquiesce to them, because the human in the womb is giving you nothing. If it was a human on a bed in a coma, you would be slower to agree to take the life. If the foetus is of equal importance purely because they are alive and human (I and many others hold that view), then it's an easier decision to say no to abortion.
And if the only argument you have is to try to discredit the pro life with swathes of tar, you need to think harder. Our societal consciences are being ignored because it's easier.0 -
Andyfitzer wrote: »It's is a hard question if you don't believe they are just a bunch of cells. The born human can argue with you, jump up and down. Easy to acquiesce to them, because the human in the womb is giving you nothing. If it was a human on a bed in a coma, you would be slower to agree to take the life. If the foetus is of equal importance purely because they are alive and human (I and many others hold that view), then it's an easier decision to say no to abortion.
And if the only argument you have is to try to discredit the pro life with swathes of tar, you need to think harder. Our societal consciences are being ignored because it's easier.
The foetus's life obviously is not of equal importance because of its level of dependence on the mother. The potential for life always plays second fiddle to actual life. The acorn is not the oak tree.0 -
Andyfitzer wrote: »Here we can stop people doing something deemed immoral by some.
We should stop people doing things deemed immoral by society, not by some. You don't get to impose your personal morality on people - unless you're in the majority, in which case you do - but I'm hopeful that the days when the irrational belief that a fertilised egg is a person could be used to force someone to be pregnant against their will are numbered.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »We should stop people doing things deemed immoral by society, not by some. You don't get to impose your personal morality on people - unless you're in the majority, in which case you do - but I'm hopeful that the days when the irrational belief that a fertilised egg is a person could be used to force someone to be pregnant against their will are numbered.
I sense a strong superiority complex from you. Nothing irrational about that belief. Your belief could be treated equally. You make some interesting points, but filled with condescension. Your version of morality is equally valid as mine until the majority decide. I think you fail to grasp my comments are in the context of a discussion. I'm not imposing them on anyone unless the majority agree in the future. You might get a nose bleed up on that horse0 -
Ad hominem.Andyfitzer wrote: »I sense a strong superiority complex from you.
You're squirming away from addressing my "interesting points" by criticising me instead of my arguments. That's a sure-fire indication that you can't attack those arguments with reason, so you're resorting to butt-hurt.Nothing irrational about that belief. Your belief could be treated equally. You make some interesting points, but filled with condescension.
The belief that a fertilised egg is a person is irrational because (among other reasons) a fertilised egg can become two people. You hand-wave this away by describing it as "interesting" but refuse to engage with it because you're cross with me for not being nice enough to you.
If my "belief" can be treated as irrational, kindly point out what about it is irrational, ideally without ad-hominem attacks.
My "version of morality" doesn't require forcing women to be pregnant against their will.Your version of morality is equally valid as mine until the majority decide.
If you personally believe that a fertilised egg is a person, and choose not to have an abortion on that basis, that's completely fine: it's called choice. If you take that belief and use it as the basis for voting for a situation where someone else is denied a choice, that's not fine, and you are imposing your views on others.I think you fail to grasp my comments are in the context of a discussion. I'm not imposing them on anyone unless the majority agree in the future.
I don't care what your beliefs are, until your beliefs translate into a vote for taking rights away from people who objectively are human beings. Then your beliefs - or, more accurately, the actions informed by your beliefs - are subject to criticism.
Ad hominem.You might get a nose bleed up on that horse
Let's address (rather than skirt around) my "interesting point": if a fertilised egg is a person, how can it become two people?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »If my "belief" can be treated as irrational, kindly point out what about it is irrational, ideally without ad-hominem attacks. My "version of morality" doesn't require forcing women to be pregnant against their will. If you personally believe that a fertilised egg is a person, and choose not to have an abortion on that basis, that's completely fine: it's called choice. If you take that belief and use it as the basis for voting for a situation where someone else is denied a choice, that's not fine, and you are imposing your views on others.
it's perfectly fine and it's not imposing one's view on others, it's imposing a rule that protects the right of a human being to live. all of the laws we have are imposing things on society and that is done for the greater good for the most part, even if some may disagree with the laws.oscarBravo wrote: »I don't care what your beliefs are, until your beliefs translate into a vote for taking rights away from people who objectively are human beings. Then your beliefs - or, more accurately, the actions informed by your beliefs - are subject to criticism.
exactly. hence the vote should be to keep the 8th, as by removing it we are removing the rights of the unborn to life, and we are allowing for something that isn't a right (abortion on demand)ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Advertisement
-
end of the road wrote: »she should have been jailed like all other drug importers. she imported illegal drugs into the country, the fact they were abortion pills should have made no difference.
the state can't stop people from traveling ultimately. unless they have the wrong documentation, or are a convicted criminal.
again it's down to the likely hood of an actual prosecution taking place. personally i think while drugs are illegal then all importers/dealers should be treated the same whether it be abortion pills or something else.
Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. That a woman that has had an abortion illegally is not charged with murder has nothing to do with evidential burden or likelihood of securing a conviction. It is that an abortion, even an illegal one, is not considered to be murder. That is a basic and simple fact.
There is an offence, developed fairly recently, as part of the POLDP Act which covers procuring an abortion illegally. The charge is procuring an abortion, not murder. As pointed out earlier, there are two elements required for their to be murder, the act of unlawfully killing another person, and the intention (in carrying out that act) to cause death or really harm to that person. I would suggest that it is impossible to procure an abortion without intending death or really serious harm to the thing being aborted. Further, there is an unlawful act with causes death. So why is it a charge of procuring an abortion and not murder?
MrP0
Advertisement