nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

drkpower

seamus wrote: »

Yes, it is given the rights of the president-elect, not of the president.

By all means argue that "the foetus deserves the right to life because...", but the end of that sentence isn't "it's a potential person".

The president-elect is given certain rights and privileges because they're necessary to ensure an efficient handover between administrations and ensure the safety of the president elect. Not because they're a "potential president".

So on the same basis, what rights does a foetus need, and why?

The presidential analogy was probably tongue in cheek to begin with, but the point is that intermediates/potentials are actually given rights all the time, the extent of those rights depending but being somewhere between none and full rights.

Completely outside of the 8th etc, we give certain rights to foetus' all the time. A foetus can't be harmed/neglected by a doctor for instance, and if it is, the doctor can be sued. That right vests after birth, but that is as much a matter of practicality rather than anything else. If the foetus truly 'had no rights', a doctor would be entitled to neglect and harm a foetus and walk away scott free.

So, yes, the foetus is given many rights/privileges etc; i dont see why people seek to avoid that simple reality. It is entirely possible to hold a liberal pro-choice position while accepting that blindingly obvious reality.

Fizzlesque

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You pretty much answer your own question from my perspective anyway, although I've never believed in life at all costs, because I don't think that really is fair, and there are and have often been a number of circumstances where I thought either abortion or euthanasia may have been the better option. However it was never my decision to make.

I've always been the sort of person who has looked at things and thought "it doesn't have to be like this, there has to be a better way", and that's what's always driven me as opposed to saying there's too much pain in the world, what would possess anyone to impose another life on an already overpopulated planet?

For one thing the overpopulation argument is far more nuanced than it's made out here, and there's no reason we couldn't seriously tackle poverty in developing countries if we really, really wanted to. Personally, I've always preferred to work closer to home, tackle the problems I see on my own doorstep. I rarely have time to get contemplative about global problems when there's so much needs to be done within my own community already.

I don't think being given life on earth is some great gift. Quite frankly, I agree with you, it's shìte most of the time. But, I believe that everyone should be given the same opportunity to make life better for themselves and for each other, and I don't think that can ever be achieved in one generation alone, but it takes each new generation to get closer to that goal, and so that's why I prefer to give as many people as I can a chance to contribute to that goal, because none of us can achieve it on our own, and it doesn't have to be like this.

I don't want the world to be a miserable hell-hole that people wouldn't bring a child into, so I try and do something about it. That's all.

Thanks, One Eyed Jack. I wouldn't be one to throw out the overpopulation perspective - I had a brief read about anti natalist after reading Nozzferratthoo's post, and that doesn't represent my worldview. I do sometimes rant a little about how much better the planet would be without us but I don't advocate setting that situation in motion by calling time on having babies (unworkable as it is)

I loved your closing thoughts. Be the ripple towards change, or something like that. Me too. But that's not all

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yeah Jack keeps minimising the negative impacts on the 8th on womens lives and healthcare as if they are irrelevant to the debate and discussion.

No Joey, that's not true and that's certainly not the way I intend anything I've said to come across. I'm quite aware of the potential negative effects of the existence of the 8th amendment, but I don't see the potential negative effects of the existence of the 8th amendment as outweighing the potential negative effects of the repeal of the 8th amendment. I've given my reasons for coming to this conclusion earlier in the thread, and people who disagree with them have chosen to downplay them, and that's fair enough, leaves us at somewhat of an impass. I'm ok with that, not because I want to be, but because I have to be, because I accept and understand that not everyone sees everything the same way in Irish society.

seamus

drkpower wrote: »

Precisely; but it is given some rights; not full, but some. You should reflect on that.

Yes, it is given the rights of the president-elect, not of the president.

By all means argue that "the foetus deserves the right to life because...", but the end of that sentence isn't "it's a potential person".

The president-elect is given certain rights and privileges because they're necessary to ensure an efficient handover between administrations and ensure the safety of the president elect. Not because they're a "potential president".

So on the same basis, what rights does a foetus need, and why?

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh, but not as a result of the 8th amendment. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that's not what you were trying to imply - that her death was a result of the 8th amendment.

Ectopic pregnancies can be treated with a drug called methotrexate. The woman's husband enquired about this, but according to the RTE reporter on Twitter, he was told "the foetal sac had a heartbeat and the only option was surgery."

The drug works by stopping the growth of the unborn, in other words, the unborn is directly targeted. Surgery, while having the same effect, isn't regarded as being directly targeted as the initial aim is to remove a part of the fallopian tube. The woman wasn't denied the drug because of the effect it could have on her, but because of the effect it would have on the unborn.

So while certainly the doctors and hospital bear responsibility for the effects of the surgery, the 8th bears the responsibility for her having the surgery in the first place and denying her the option of medical, non invasive treatment.

drkpower

seamus wrote: »

You're splitting hairs. The president-elect is not the president. .

Precisely; but it is given some rights; not full, but some. You should reflect on that.

Fizzlesque

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I question that too....

Thank you, nozzferrahhtoo, I am pleased to have been understood. I try to not post on abortion threads anymore, but I've been reading this thread all along and had a few glasses of wine last night and emotion got the better of me and away I went doing the posting I'm not supposed to be doing, so I was happy to read your post when I woke up and thought, "ah crap, I posted last night"

There is more I could say but I feel a bit like a tin can that was tied to a car being dragged along the road, and yourself and Peregrinus are driving the car (two steering wheels, of course

) As well as that, I need to keep this post short and sweet because I have to compose a reply to One Eyed Jack after this one, so I'd better not get into lengthy post mode, or there could be trouble ahead. :P).

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

for unwanted pregnancies it does have an effect because those who cant travel for abortion for any reason are forced to go through with the pregnancy despite the possible negative aspects on her life. not forgetting those women where their abortion is delayed because of the difficulty (financial or otherwise) of traveling and they end up with a more invasive procedure because of this.

seamus

drkpower wrote: »

Seamus, you didn't address the point; about the president elect getting some rights despite not being the actual president. But carry on....

You're splitting hairs. The president-elect is not the president.

Just like a foetus is not a person.

If you want, we can use any number of analogies. A medical student is not a doctor. A child is not an adult.

We never assign the rights of (X) to things which are potential (X). This is no different.

Now, by all means argue that a foetus should be protected. But you can't argue that it deserves the rights of a person or should be treated as a person.

Because it's not.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The 8th has a positive effect on her right to life before she's even born though?

I am still curious what your interest even is in a law that protects the right to life of the unborn given you have indicated to me in the past (assuming you were not just communicating poorly) that you believe a woman should be able to have a termination of her pregnancy at any stage, for any reason.

I am very interested to hear how one can hold the position that a woman should have the right to terminate the pregnancy at any stage for any reason........ while also holding to the position the unborn should have a right to life.

You have told us "that a woman should have full control over her own body at any stage in her pregnancy.".

Is that not at odds with a law that gives a right to life to the unborn?

You have also told us that "Before it's born, it's a foetus, inside a pregnant woman, who does not want to continue her pregnancy. After it's born, it's no longer a foetus, but an individual human being upon which we confer human rights."

Is there not a contradiction in saying we confer rights after birth, but having a law that gives it rights before birth?

I genuinely would like to see the connection here, because at the moment it is like reading the posts of two totally different people posting under one single user name. Perhaps a simple re-wording of your points is all that is required for me to see the missing link, but right now things appear to by entirely contradictory.

Or maybe even better, because second voices can often be clearer than one.... if someone ELSE understands how this conflict is resolved and understands OEJs position here, could you adumbrate it in your own words for me. Maybe I will understand the same point better simply made by a different person in a different way?

eviltwin

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yeah Jack keeps minimising the negative impacts on the 8th on womens lives and healthcare as if they are irrelevant to the debate and discussion.

People like Jack see the negative impacts as worth it if it prevents abortion

eviltwin

Even if surgery for eptopic pregnancy is successful, let's not forget it's removing a healthy tube and reducing a woman's ability to conceive in the future. I know one woman who had the same experience, tube removal because the hospital wouldn't offer an alternative. It's barbaric.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Annasopra

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah Jack keeps minimising the negative impacts on the 8th on womens lives and healthcare as if they are irrelevant to the debate and discussion.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

An excellent reason to get rid of the 8th Amendment - because if the world you bring a child into is Ireland and that child is female and she wants to have children some day - the 8th will negatively affect her maternity care.

The 8th has a positive effect on her right to life before she's even born though?

Look, I see your point, I do, I just don't agree that it outweighs the need for the 8th to remain in place.

I was told last night of a woman who had to have a surgery for an ectopic pregnancy rather than medicine - because, as the consultant told her, "the only way to do this and not risk the law is with surgery. Its not medical best practice but itll keep us all out of jail".

I'd well believe it, but I wouldn't imagine those circumstances are all that common.

Today there is a story of same in the newspapers except the poor woman died as a result of the surgery.

Ahh, but not as a result of the 8th amendment. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that's not what you were trying to imply - that her death was a result of the 8th amendment. No, her death was unfortunately due to -

The court was told what had happened was a "cascade of negligence" in which one individual act of negligence was followed by another.

I thought this bit was particularly depressing -

The court was told that when a decision was taken to try to cool her brain, two doctors had to be sent to a local pub to fetch ice.

Source: Man takes legal action over death of wife during surgery at National Maternity Hospital

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

Great news, thanks.

Even better news - This is the whole sentence including the bit you left out

"In my view, both simple repeal and repeal and replace allow for a reasonable level of legal certainty, although in the case of replace much depends on the wording that is proposed...."

That's a big but of a caveat to be ignoring when it's clarification you are seeking.

.......

This post has been deleted.

drkpower

Seamus, you didn't address the point; about the president elect getting some rights despite not being the actual president. But carry on....

One eyed Jack

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I have a question that keeps resurfacing in my mind, every time I read threads like this. That question is, why is being given a life on earth considered to be better than not being given a life on earth? Why the automatic assumption that every potential life should become a living, breathing life - nature's interventions excluded?

I don't mean how can life on earth be considered a good thing, because I know it can be good, great, even amazing at times, but it can also be a truly difficult experience some of the time, or all of the time, for some people. To qualify, I'm not saying I don't understand or appreciate that life can be a wonderful experience, but it is, unfortunately, a painful experience for many.

I ask this as someone who continued with an unplanned pregnancy, and relinquished her child to parents that wanted a (second, adopted) child. I read threads like this one in a confused state of mind. There is the part of me that understands how traumatic an unplanned pregnancy can be - I know that feeling of being unsupported and pregnant. Then there is another side of me, the side that hopes my child is happy she was given a chance to live a life on this planet, even though that life wasn't lived with her biological mother.

Although I don't feel the same as this thread's (and similar thread's) pro-life posters, I find myself strangely comforted by their 'life above all else' train of thought. It is for selfish reasons I find comfort in their dogged insistence that life, even in its very early stage, should be given the chance to be born. That selfish reason is that I hope my child prefers the life I gave her, with a family brand new, to not having a life at all.

But, this comes at continued cost to me. Twenty eight years later, I still struggle with the life I now have without the child I gave birth to. I hope she loves being on this planet - this planet that can be as wonderful as it can be horrendous.

I doubt it's necessary for me to outline the pain this life can bring but I suspect that some people don't ever get to see the beauty. I'm lucky, although I feel tremendous emotional pain a lot of the time, I also feel joy and see beauty even though the measures can sometimes be unbalanced.

How do hard-stance pro-life people see this world? How can they be sure that to be given a life on earth is a great gift?

I hope they're right, and to be given a life is better than to not be given a life (on earth -who knows what else is on offer elsewhere?) because something I wasn't prepared for, when choosing to place my child with a new family, was the guilt. Level one guilt being not keeping her with me, but level two guilt (that accumulated over the many years since) is a whole new level for me - the guilt that comes with knowing that this world knows how to deliver pain, and I sent her out there to deal with it alone (by alone, I mean without me). It's crippling sometimes.

To try return from my off-tangent and back to my question: why is it deemed that life on earth is a blessing when life on earth is also almost guaranteed to bring some pain, and in some cases, a lot of pain?

At all costs. Is that really fair?

You pretty much answer your own question from my perspective anyway, although I've never believed in life at all costs, because I don't think that really is fair, and there are and have often been a number of circumstances where I thought either abortion or euthanasia may have been the better option. However it was never my decision to make.

I've always been the sort of person who has looked at things and thought "it doesn't have to be like this, there has to be a better way", and that's what's always driven me as opposed to saying there's too much pain in the world, what would possess anyone to impose another life on an already overpopulated planet?

For one thing the overpopulation argument is far more nuanced than it's made out here, and there's no reason we couldn't seriously tackle poverty in developing countries if we really, really wanted to. Personally, I've always preferred to work closer to home, tackle the problems I see on my own doorstep. I rarely have time to get contemplative about global problems when there's so much needs to be done within my own community already.

I don't think being given life on earth is some great gift. Quite frankly, I agree with you, it's shìte most of the time. But, I believe that everyone should be given the same opportunity to make life better for themselves and for each other, and I don't think that can ever be achieved in one generation alone, but it takes each new generation to get closer to that goal, and so that's why I prefer to give as many people as I can a chance to contribute to that goal, because none of us can achieve it on our own, and it doesn't have to be like this.

I don't want the world to be a miserable hell-hole that people wouldn't bring a child into, so I try and do something about it. That's all.

seamus

drkpower wrote: »

The President - elect (taking the US and other similar systems) will - barring anything untoward occurring - become the president. He is still not an actual president though. He is still only a potential president.

Exactly. And he is not assigned the rights of the President until he becomes the president.

Likewise a foetus isn't assigned the rights of a person until they become one.

When that is, is more clear-cut than we like to debate. The 50% viability point (i.e. the point at which the majority of foetuses can survive independently from the mother) is 24.5 weeks and has been there for quite some time.

So we define a "person" after this point and a "foetus" before that point because it makes no real sense to do otherwise. Because obstetrics is not an exact science, a "safety" margin of 1.5-2 weeks seems reasonable, which puts us at 22/23 weeks.

And if technology improvements allow the viability point to change, we move the needle.

You cannot assign personhood rights to something which is not a person. A pre-viable foetus is no more special than any other non-person.

drkpower

seamus wrote: »

Potential to become a person doesn't make them a person. I could potentially become president, but I'm not going to be given all of the rights and privileges of the president because of this "potential". I only get those rights and privileges when I actually become president.

Ah yeah, but there is no real prospect of you becoming the president (no offence...)

The President - elect (taking the US and other similar systems) will - barring anything untoward occurring - become the president. He is still not an actual president though. He is still only a potential president. Yet he is given some particular rights that the president has; not full rights mind you, but some rights and privileges that reflect where he is on the continuum to becoming the president.

So, you are kind of like a sperm; the president elect is like the foetus...:p

PhoenixParker

Does it really matter if an embryo is "alive"?

I don't believe it is, but for arguments sake let's suppose it's a tiny miniature human.

At best it's a tiny miniature human on life support so advanced that we haven't yet mimicked it. Only one person can and does run that life support.

We regularly switch off life support if there's no prospect of recovery (fatal fatal abnormality, really poor prognosis where it falls below FFA) so there's certainly no basis for preventing FFA abortion on the grounds of "life".

Suppose it's potentially a healthy baby, should we also oblige the carrier to continue to offer life support in the face of mental distress or health complications? We don't oblige people to donate organs, even after they're dead; we don't oblige people to donate blood. We don't oblige people in general to inconvenience themselves even slightly to save the life of another person.

Heck you can sign up to be a blood marrow donor and legally you can withdraw consent at any time, including when it would mean the certain death of the person matched with you. Everyone might consider you morally repugnant but your legal right is there.

Human life is protected but not to the extent that we force people to save others, unless you're a woman and it's an unborn "child".

What's the difference?

As I see it, men would be impacted by such obligations so everyone understands how such obligations would contradict basic freedoms and rights. Abortion, affecting only women is somehow a popular exception to bodily autonomy.

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The important part is that human beings have rights. Cells do not.

And this is the bit that's always danced around.

The only thing that differentiates a "human cell" from a "human being" is that the latter can survive independently - i.e. without a permanent connection to another biological host.

When you get down to it, that's the point at which we can say it's no longer a "potential person" and it becomes an "actual person".

This makes people uncomfortable because no matter which way you slice the argument, there is no ethical or logical basis to say that a foetus up to this point is any more a person than a liver or a kidney. It bears no specific qualities that make it any more deserving of protection than the aforementioned organs, or a tree sapling, or a canine foetus.

Potential to become a person doesn't make them a person. I could potentially become president, but I'm not going to be given all of the rights and privileges of the president because of this "potential". I only get those rights and privileges when I actually become president.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course, you'll immediately object that the term "human being" implies more than just (a) humanity and (b) existence, and then we get into arguments about what we mean by the term "human being". What further characteristics does the term imply?

The important part is that human beings have rights. Cells do not.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is the fertilized cell you speak of a fertilised human cell? If so, then we can justify calling whatever it is "human".

In a conversation about biological taxonomy yes. In a conversation talking about personhood, no. Again: Context is everything.

Alas that we have the same word for two distinctly different concepts is a problem. No denying it. And the problem manifests itself by a person using the term in one context, and then leaping the chasm to the next concept acting like using the term still holds.

And it is not just here we have this problem. We have it in discussions on religion for example. We have one term "religion" for things that are measurably better and worse than each other. Yet if you take something like Jainism and something like Islam, the word "religion" is one of the few things that connects them. If you take Bowls and MMA Cage death matches, one of the few things that connects them is the word "sport".

Language is rich and diverse so often. But limited and misleading much of the time too. And having one word describe vastly differing things is alas something that can derail and cloud otherwise fruitful discourse.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course, you'll immediately object that the term "human being" implies more than just (a) humanity and (b) existence, and then we get into arguments about what we mean by the term "human being". What further characteristics does the term imply?

Sure but again context comes to the rescue. You do not need to look into what further characteristics does it imply in general (which could be many). But what characteristics does it imply SPECIFICALLY that would give it rights. Or cause it to have moral and ethical concern for us.

And invariably the things people identify under that context and constraint, turn out to be things the fetus generally being aborted by choice (the near totality in or before week 16) lacks in pretty much every meaning of the word lack.

Call Me Jimmy

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I have a question that keeps resurfacing in my mind, every time I read threads like this. That question is, why is being given a life on earth considered to be better than not being given a life on earth? Why the automatic assumption that every potential life should become a living, breathing life - nature's interventions excluded?

I don't mean how can life on earth be considered a good thing, because I know it can be good, great, even amazing at times, but it can also be a truly difficult experience some of the time, or all of the time, for some people. To qualify, I'm not saying I don't understand or appreciate that life can be a wonderful experience, but it is, unfortunately, a painful experience for many.

I ask this as someone who continued with an unplanned pregnancy, and relinquished her child to parents that wanted a (second, adopted) child. I read threads like this one in a confused state of mind. There is the part of me that understands how traumatic an unplanned pregnancy can be - I know that feeling of being unsupported and pregnant. Then there is another side of me, the side that hopes my child is happy she was given a chance to live a life on this planet, even though that life wasn't lived with her biological mother.

Although I don't feel the same as this thread's (and similar thread's) pro-life posters, I find myself strangely comforted by their 'life above all else' train of thought. It is for selfish reasons I find comfort in their dogged insistence that life, even in its very early stage, should be given the chance to be born. That selfish reason is that I hope my child prefers the life I gave her, with a family brand new, to not having a life at all.

But, this comes at continued cost to me. Twenty eight years later, I still struggle with the life I now have without the child I gave birth to. I hope she loves being on this planet - this planet that can be as wonderful as it can be horrendous.

I doubt it's necessary for me to outline the pain this life can bring but I suspect that some people don't ever get to see the beauty. I'm lucky, although I feel tremendous emotional pain a lot of the time, I also feel joy and see beauty even though the measures can sometimes be unbalanced.

How do hard-stance pro-life people see this world? How can they be sure that to be given a life on earth is a great gift?

I hope they're right, and to be given a life is better than to not be given a life (on earth -who knows what else is on offer elsewhere?) because something I wasn't prepared for, when choosing to place my child with a new family, was the guilt. Level one guilt being not keeping her with me, but level two guilt (that accumulated over the many years since) is a whole new level for me - the guilt that comes with knowing that this world knows how to deliver pain, and I sent her out there to deal with it alone (by alone, I mean without me). It's crippling sometimes.

To try return from my off-tangent and back to my question: why is it deemed that life on earth is a blessing when life on earth is also almost guaranteed to bring some pain, and in some cases, a lot of pain?

At all costs. Is that really fair?

Because we can't base a functioning society on the idea that life is worthless, even negative. You are living in a largely functioning society and the pain you feel about your decision would be the least of your worries if you lived in a society that did not endeavor to hold human life as valuable - if it didn't work off that assumption.

If you can still have the ability to care for other people, you know you don't want that possibility to be true. Your psyche fights it at every moment, you think you are settled on 'life isn't worth it' - even just for yourself - and time comes back with a retort. That's not to mention that no matter how bad most people feel, even if they kill themselves, most of them know that something went wrong for them and that it wasn't so bad that everyone else needed to go with them.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it isn't. Why is it "new", and while I agree it is alive, why is it a "life"?

Calling it "new life" is most of the way to saying a new human life has come into being. But to be a human life, the living thing should be a human being, not an appendix. Is a fertilized cell in a test tube a human being? I certainly don't think so.

Well, I've already flagged the uselessness of arguments about the definitions of words or terms. But, since you ask:

Is the fertilized cell you speak of a fertilised human cell? If so, then we can justify calling whatever it is "human".

Does it exist? If so, we can justify calling it a "being".

Of course, you'll immediately object that the term "human being" implies more than just (a) humanity and (b) existence, and then we get into arguments about what we mean by the term "human being". What further characteristics does the term imply? But, as we discuss this, what will emerge is something like this: you apply the term "human being" to entities that you consider to have moral claims upon us by virtue of their human characteristics. You don't consider that mere biological humanity, of itself, is enough to engage a degree of moral respect that would prevent us terminating a pregnancy, but you do consider that, say sentience is a characteristic that engages this degree of respect. So if it was human, and existing, and sentient, you'd say, yeah, that's a human being.

But what this boils down to is this; you don't call the entity a "human being" at any stage where you consider that the characteristics it possesses don't give rise to an insurmountable ethical objection to terminating its life. But, if so, then you can't validly argue that we can abort it because it's not a human being; that's just a circular argument.

nozzferrahhtoo

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

Are you saying that it is not life at all or that it is existing life?

It is alive in the sense of being a distinct biological entity that is.... well.... doing it's thing. Taking in energy and ordering that energy for higher function and so forth.

But when it comes to rights and morals and ethics it is not "Alive" in any meaningful sense that distinguishes it morally from..... say.... an amoeba or an ant or so forth. In fact I would tend to have a tad more moral and ethical concern for an ant than a 12 week gestated fetus.

Birdie Num Num

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it isn't. Why is it "new", and while I agree it is alive, why is it a "life"?

Are you saying that it is not life at all or that it is existing life?