end of the road wrote: » wouldn't work though. any protest banns are usually defied, and tbh rightly so. as much as intimidation is wrong, any protest banns are against democracy and must be defied at any cost.
Da Boss wrote: » The truth hurts sometimes
....... wrote: » If I were on the fence I can certainly say this thread would persuade me in favour of repealing the 8th.
eviltwin wrote: » end of the road wrote: » wouldn't work though. any protest banns are usually defied, and tbh rightly so. as much as intimidation is wrong, any protest banns are against democracy and must be defied at any cost. They will have nowhere to protest unless you think they are going to bother standing outside maternity hospitals and GP clinics. They will soon get tired of that. It won't change anything anyway.
....... wrote: » Im sorry you dont understand the concept of a conditional verb, the modh coinníollach must have stumped you in school. Id be delighted if you could show the points I made that made no sense Jack?
Im still waiting on you to give us: (a) evidence to show that the 8th Amendment should be kept in place due to positive outcomes and (b) an argument to show that a fetus should have more rights than a living sentient woman.
One eyed Jack wrote: » No, I won't elucidate any such thing, because that would be tacit acknowledgement that I have to frame my arguments in such a way as to acknowledge that I have to kowtow to your authority. That would be like me asking you to frame your arguments according to existing laws in this country. I don't expect you to btw, but you don't get to tell me how I should make my arguments either. The 8th has never suggested that the unborn has more rights than the woman btw, but you knew that already, it's just the facts and evidence don't suit your argument.
WhiteRoses wrote: » This is now the 3rd time I’ve asked you, but you keep ignoring my posts and skirting around the issue. Bar forcing women who don’t want to be pregnant to be pregnant, what is your solution to all of this? And what are your opinions on how the 8th affects maternity care and the concept of consent? If you choose not to reply to this I have no choice to believe that you don’t have an answer and don’t even understand the full implications of the 8th. You are arguing for a cause you aren’t even fully aware of.
Da Boss wrote: » I’m forcing no woman to be pregnant, play safe in the bed and there will be no problems, if a woman chooses not to, she must suffer the consequences. There is alternatives to abortion that don’t end life, it’s my belief these options should be explored and utilized
January wrote: » Contraception fails.
Da Boss wrote: » As a result of negligence
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
volchitsa wrote: » And if there's negligence by someone other than the woman who gets pregnant, why should she suffer the consequences? For instance, some of the more recent very low-dose contraceptive pills (hoping to reduce cardiovascular risks) have turned out not to be strong enough for some women, particularly young women at the height of their fertility. They didn't choose what pills to take, and initially it was always assumed that they were just lying about not having forgotten to take the pills (I know someone this happened to) and it was only after some years that this other possible explanation began to circulate. So since you want to punish women for being careless, how do you suggest we punish doctors for being careless - make them responsible for child support? Or is it only ever the woman herself who requires punishing?
end of the road wrote: » he has given you the answers. the unborn doesn't have more rights then the woman. it has equal rights bar extreme circumstances. i understand you may not like the answers given but that doesn't make them the wrong answers.
end of the road wrote: » nobody requires punishing.
end of the road wrote: » one just has to accept they cannot kill the unborn within the state of ireland, and that they don't have a right to expect the state to provide lifestyle abortion. that is all.
volchitsa wrote: » Why though? Even "in extreme circumstances" I can't take your blood or a kidney without your consent. Because you are my equal all the time, not just when it suits me. So the unborn is either equal to the woman or it's not. And if it's not equal-equal, then where does it get any rights at all over her body without her consent? I was replying to someone who was in effect making that point though, because if the rights of the unborn depend on whether or not the woman had sex willingly, then the life of the unborn is basically being used as a way of punishing the woman for having been careless. Why though? Isn't my opinion as important as yours? And I don't accept it. So unless you can convince me that I should, I intend to continue arguing that you are wrong. No "that is all" about it, AFAIAC.
volchitsa wrote: » Why though? Even "in extreme circumstances" I can't take your blood or a kidney without your consent. Because you are my equal all the time, not just when it suits me. So the unborn is either equal to the woman or it's not. And if it's not equal-equal, then where does it get any rights at all over her body without her consent?
Why though? Isn't my opinion as important as yours? And I don't accept it. So unless you can convince me that I should, I intend to continue arguing that you are wrong. No "that is all" about it, AFAIAC.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You can't take my kidney, but there are measures being touted which would make it perfectly legal for my kidneys to be taken upon my death, or any other organ for that matter, unless I specifically do not opt out. They haven't been introduced yet, and I hope they're not introduced, because any donation should be voluntary.
end of the road wrote: » both our opinions are equally important. the issue here is that my statement in relation to the unborn isn't simply an opinion, but an actual fact in this country. the reason we have such laws is that we recognise the right to life to be almost absolute so therefore we include the unborn within that as we recognise their right to life to be important. changing that means long term we devalue life as a whole, as shown from britain for example where life is slowly but surely being devalued.
pitifulgod wrote: » I'm genuinely amazed that there's anybody who's annoyed by an opt out policy rather than opt in. It will save many lives by doing so. Fascinates me that there are people who want to be the lives of the unborn first but in the event of an organ donation opt-out policy, that's too far....
volchitsa wrote: » I don't think anyone here is unaware of what the law says, so when you say people just have to accept that, what exactly do you mean? You can't imagine that we don't already know, clearly, so you seem to be saying people "should" accept it. What evidence do you have that life is being devalued in Britain more than in Ireland, and how is this a result of their abortion laws? Do you think the disabled, for instance, are treated worse now than they were in the past, and that they are better treated in Ireland? Because your post above comes across as nothing more than fact free wishful thinking.
Da Boss wrote: » Well I ask this question- if abortion is available in why bother with a condom and just have the real deal! Sher you could just go get an abortion, no big deal. I ASK ALL CONSIDERING VOTING PRO CHOICE, IS THIS THE YOU WANT???
Da Boss wrote: » Well I ask this question- if abortion is available in Ireland why bother with a condom and just have the real deal! Sher you could just go get an abortion, no big deal. I ASK ALL CONSIDERING VOTING PRO CHOICE, IS THIS THE IRELAND YOU WANT???
One eyed Jack wrote: » Now, having said that, pregnancy presents a completely different set of circumstances, in which the right to life is the only consideration, and the the State acknowledges that it has an obligation to protect and vindicate the right to life of the unborn as far as is practicable. It's aspirational at best to suggest that the right to life of the unborn and the right to life of the woman are ever equal, if there is a threat to the life of the mother where her life is then put above that of the unborn. The unborn isn't claiming any more rights than that which has already been acknowledged by the State, and it's the State which acknowledges the woman's right to life and the many more rights she has than the foetus. The State in that case doesn't need her consent.
One eyed Jack wrote: » There's a better example what little rights anyone has over their own body when it was determined already by the Courts, that although we all have the right to life, the right to die does not exist in this country at least, which is why Marie Flemming for example, her perceived right to die, was not recognised by the State, because no such right exists in this country. Obviously anyone can take their own life as suicide was decriminalised, but nobody has the right to assist anyone in taking their own life.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I'll put it to you this way - I'd place far more value in your opinion than I would a lot of other people's opinions on this thread. I may not always agree with you (I do... sometimes! ), but at least I can acknowledge that you know far more about this issue than I ever will. I'm not even going to attempt to argue that anyone should ever just 'accept' anything, but we both know that currently, it is illegal for you to have an elective abortion in this country. That is a fact. You don't have to accept it, but just because you don't accept it doesn't give you any right to commit a criminal act.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You can still do it of course, but then you are choosing to forego the protection of the State, which I suppose is fair enough if you don't actually need the protection of the State in those circumstances.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Or, you can do like you're doing now and actually inform people through having a reasonable discussion and getting the information out there, rather than descending into a condescending, petty, point scoring match that wouldn't look out of place in a televised political 'debate'.
end of the road wrote: » because an opt out system effectively means the theft of organs. if people want to donate good on them but it should be up to the person to make that decisian not the state. but that's for another thread i guess.
One eyed Jack wrote: » the disabled in britain are going back to being treated as bad as they were. things improved for a while but it's quickly going backwards. ireland does need to improve it's system but i think in some ways we do treat people a bit better then britain. everything needs improving but i'd bet a disabled person would rather ireland then modern britain?
Da Boss wrote: » Well one can be sure that half drunken couples won’t be worrying about the In and outs of an abortion, all they will be thinking of is of having a good night. The baby that may result is a problem for another day
