volchitsa wrote: » So let's wait till the embryos have implanted and pretend we think that's when life begins. Much handier, and who cares about women's health after all. Meh.
bubblypop wrote: » I posted this story before on a different thread I think, but I will post again,just in case people don't understand how the 8th amendment can affect women's health. A few years ago I had an ectopic pregnancy. I was approx 7 weeks pregnant, so most definitely a very small bunch of cells. In the hospital I was not informed that there were any options available in my treatment. I had to undergo emergency surgery, where they removed the embryo. Afterwards I spoke with a midwife, who informed me that ectopic pregnancy can be dealt with by way of a pill. This was not an option for me however because the 8th amendment made it illegal for them to 'kill' the embryo. They had to operate & the loss Of The embryo was as a consequence of operating. So, basically instead of giving me a pill, with little side affects I had to go under anaesthetic and undergo an operation which was entirely unnecessary.
bubblypop wrote: » if it happened in any other country we here would believe them to be backward.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I voted against the 8th in the original referendum because it was a mad thing to put in the Constitution. The sequence of disasters which have followed it since have justified that view. The whole "right to life of the unborn" was stupid right from the start, and lots and lots of people pointed it out back then (including FG then in Government who didn't want to use that wording - for good reason).
Peter Sutherland in 1983 The overall reason, which crops up in almost every facet of any attempted solution is that the subject matter of the amendment sough is of such complexity, involves so many matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise as to be incapable of accurate encapsulation into a simple constitution-type provision. Words which one would expect in normal usage to be quite clear in their simplicity, in the context of a proposed amendment, take on complex but vital ambiguities which make their use in a constitution not only undesirable but dangerous in their uncertainty.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Joey if you wanted to view the issue in those terms, then women should be discouraged from ever getting pregnant in the first place.
Fred Swanson wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Da Boss wrote: » They have yet to acknowledge a single genuine argument.for the retention of the eight amendment. They have yet to make any reference to the unborn child.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Wasn't it determined though in that case that the frozen embryos did not meet the conditions for the protection of life of the unborn on the basis that the term only applies to embryos which have implanted in the womb?
One eyed Jack wrote: » I don't think there's any attempt to reduce a woman's human rights on the basis that she is pregnant, but rather it's an attempt to weigh up the right to life of both the unborn and the pregnant woman in question and find a balance between the two competing rights.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » I'm dying to see how the pro-lifers on here and politics.ie react the following day if the referendum is passed (if their heads haven't exploded). I don't see how they can pretend that 'the fight goes on' in any meaningful sense. With contraception, divorce, etc. you would say they let that one go and move on to the next battle, but I don't see that there is a 'next battle' of any consequence. So what, stop worrying and learn to love secular liberalism?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Joey if you wanted to view the issue in those terms, then women should be discouraged from ever getting pregnant in the first place as they are immediately putting their lives in danger. In fact, women should just wrap themselves in linen and never leave their abode as they are immediately putting themselves in danger. I would fully expect any woman would tell me to naff off if I suggested such measures in an attempt to claim they could be putting themselves in danger otherwise.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » And the same will happen when the 8th is finally gone. No-one will miss it.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Indeed and so we get doctors tying themselves in knots trying to work out the legal practicality of whether to abort in order to save the womans life. So effectively what happens in a number of cases is that the 8th puts womens lives in danger.
volchitsa wrote: » Funny none of these women ever seem to feel strongly enough about this to come out and say so themselves isn't it?
bubblypop wrote: » I posted this story before on a different thread I think, but I will post again,just in case people don't understand how the 8th amendment can affect women's health. A few years ago I had an ectopic pregnancy. I was approx 7 weeks pregnant, so most definitely a very small bunch of cells. In the hospital I was not informed that there were any options available in my treatment. I had to undergo emergency surgery, where they removed the embryo. Afterwards I spoke with a midwife, who informed me that ectopic pregnancy can be dealt with by way of a pill. This was not an option for me however because the 8th amendment made it illegal for them to 'kill' the embryo. They had to operate & the loss Of The embryo was as a consequence of operating. So, basically instead of giving me a pill, with little side affects I had to go under anaesthetic and undergo an operation which was entirely unnecessary. if it happened in any other country we here would believe them to be backward.
Da Boss wrote: » One observation I’ve made reading all the pro choice posts is that despite all the reasons we, the pro life side, have given as to why The eighth amendment should be retained. They have yet to acknowledge a single genuine argument.for the retention of the eight amendment. They have yet to make any reference to the unborn child. I find the arrogance from the pro choice side baffling, as it appears to them their superior to us and were just uneducated fools.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Ireland is one of only three countries in Europe which acknowledges the legal right to life of the unborn, and introduced the 8th amendment to vindicate and protect that right as far as was practical, which means that in cases where it simply isn't practical to view the right to life of the unborn and the right to life of the woman as equal, the woman's right to life takes precedence over the right to life of the unborn, as one would logically expect, in theory at least.
Da Boss wrote: » I would do all I could within reason. Obviously I couldn’t be forceful about it
Outlaw Pete wrote: » So, tell us, PROUDLY, why stilling the hearbeats of babies as they develop in the womb is still the right way to go about things, even when the mother's health and developing baby's health are not in any danger.
222233 wrote: » Different pro-choice siders have different opinions. From my perspective repealing the eight falls into acknowledging women's rights and providing a basic medical procedure available to women in many forward facing countries. However if I were to look at it from the side of the unborn I would say, that in some cases (e.g fatal foetal abnormalities etc.) repealing the eight amendment works to protect the unborn, from unnecessary potential suffering. I don't believe the pro-choice side are uneducated, like the pro-life side there are varying degrees of views on each part. I do however think that some within the pro-life can be quite insensitive with respect to how they speak of abortion, it seems that people forget that there are thousands of women in this country who have had abortions (Legally, without breaking any laws) as is their right to do so. I also think that some views are very one sided, they look at abortion solely from the perspective of the unborn and omit that the mother / father have any rights. Alas, the stories of women who regret having abortions are very sad, but they should not be used as a weapon to deter other women from considering the option or preventing women from having abortions. Similarly, stories of people who's mothers decided not to have an abortion, I don't get where the argument in this is, every child who has been born was born because someone didn't have an abortion. As for religion, that argument is mute as far as I'm concerned.
volchitsa wrote: » If we actually followed through on this principle, you'd have a point, but there are so many instances in which this other human life gets little or no consideration (destruction of IVF embryos being one obvious example) that its application in order to justify reducing the pregnant woman's rights is more the exception than the rule.
Which suggests that the motivation is more about making some aspirational statement than about genuinely exercising rights for the unborn.
applehunter wrote: » It's a trick question. I gave a flippant answer.
applehunter wrote: » The answer is that it protects the life of the unborn in Ireland. That is a positive for me.
Da Boss wrote: » One observation I’ve made reading all the pro choice posts is that despite all the reasons we, the pro life side, have given as to why The eighth amendment should be retained. They have yet to acknowledge a single genuine argument. for the retention of the eight amendment. They have yet to make any reference to the unborn child. I find the arrogance from the pro choice side baffling, as it appears to them their superior to us and were just uneducated fools.
One eyed Jack wrote: » not ignoring your point volchista, I'm saying that the only way the two different circumstances could be relatable is if the decisions I made for myself also affected the another human life which was immediately dependent upon my continued survival. I would suggest that under those conditions, I would not have the ability to withdraw consent to a procedure which would have an immediate effect on another human life which was immediately dependent upon my survival, in Ireland at least. You could of course make the same decision I did in the same circumstances I did, if you weren't pregnant, and that's the important distinction.
volchitsa wrote: » All of that ignores the single main issue that Pilly and I were pointing out here, which is that women have been threatened with arrest for not "consenting" to medical procedures. And these are not just women who wanted abortions, by the way : because of the 8th amendment, women have had various medical procedures done without their consent and even when the procedure went wrong and caused her and her baby significant harm, a woman who sued had costs awarded against her (Ciara Hamilton). You refuse to acknowledge that what really matters there is that you could choose to have a procedure, or refuse to have one. That's why your point about risking your life is completely different to the situation a pregnant woman finds herself in. If I choose to risk my life, that's one thing. But the law doesn't allow me to make that decision, unlike you. Especially when my health is not important enough to be worth considering at all.
Chrome Autofillet wrote: » I think the unborn child deserves consideration, it was brought into the world without it's consent, the least you can do is give it the consideration it deserves. In my opinion, abortion up until around 12 weeks should be legal.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
