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: » 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.
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.
Fred Swanson wrote: » This post has been deleted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
volchitsa wrote: » It was only with the death of Savita that women really began asking questions about what else the 8th was doing apart from being an ineffective ban on abortion.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I don't think that is where that came from. The whole implantation thing is not based on women's health or a definition of life, it is based on the judges best read of what the term "unborn" might mean, legally. They were presented with the dog's dinner of the wording of the 8th, and had to decide what it meant. Could it protect a fertilized cell in a test tube? They decided that no, it could not, that something that had never even been near a womb could not be "unborn". This is not a consequence of judges not caring about life or women's health, it is a consequence of putting language into the Constitution which nobody in Ireland understood.
NuMarvel wrote: » This case might have gone differently if the Pro Life Amendment Campaign's suggested text had been inserted. That said: "The State recognises the absolute right to life of every unborn child from conception, and accordingly guarantees to respect and protect such rights by law."
Zubeneschamali wrote: » There's one of them on a poster I've seen up in a few places. "The time it took to book travel to England was all the time it took to change my mind". Wealthy looking white woman with a happy, healthy baby. And posters wouldn't lie, right?
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.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » In fairness, it seems to show that this particular nun was not loopy enough to believe in Limbo, which belief is a large part of the problem, originally. Many catholics believed that from the time they got their little souls to baptism, babies went to a part of Limbo for eternity is they died, so it was vital to save the baby long enough to baptize them so they could go to heaven. (Limbo had another wing where Noah, Moses and co. waited until Jesus died and went to get them, but that's not important right now.)
baylah17 wrote: The Eight Amendment to the Constitution was the single biggest catastrophe to beset this state since its foundation. What is notable about the anti-choice anti woman headbangers who now oppose its repeal is that they have the arrogance to repeatedly say it should not be put to the people of this republic to decide on its retention/removal, they oppose the very concept of a referendum at all.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Many, many intelligent points have been made to you, and you have ignored them. I'm still waiting on what you recommend the consequences be for the man who gets the woman pregnant. In your opinion, the woman needs to suffer the repercussions if contraception fails. So what should happen to the man, what kind of life limiting state should we force on him for 9 months where he cannot drink, smoke or fly, and must eat a restricted diet? He won't be able to work towards the end, either. The end of the 9 months must also be very painful, possibly involving surgery. And then after that we need to give him something he needs to be responsible for, for another 18 years minimum, that will eat into a lot of his personal time and income and will need his constant attention and care. What are your recommendations for the consequences for him? Because all you seem to be banging on about is how the woman should suffer. She can't get pregnant on her own.
Da Boss wrote: Regards the inconvenience, the life of the unborn child is much more important than avoiding a bit of inconvenience on the woman. Sure it’s unfortunate, but it’s a risk you take having sex.
Martina1991 wrote: » I honestly can't take this post seriously. You're calling pregnancy an "inconvenience " now. A lifetime of looking after and paying for a human being is an "inconvenience". You're beyond ignorant.
Da Boss wrote: It’s no inconvenience, that’s a dehumanizing way of describing it however that’s how the pro choice side label a pregnancy
Da Boss wrote: » White roses appears to have nothing to say now to my reply??
