The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

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?

....... 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 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.

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?

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

eviltwin wrote: »

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.

Yep horrific. My wife got pregnant again quickly but I'd imagine we'd be quite bitter if we hadn't been able to. We know women who have not managed to conceive again afterwards.

....... wrote: »

So you would prefer to affect the maternity care of ALL women in Ireland rather than allow medical best practice because you wish to deny some women the choice to have an abortion.

That is quite breath taking.

That's not what I said at all, and what's quite breathtaking for me is that even after all this time, after all this discussion, you're still interpreting my posts with malicious intent or some desire that I have to deny women anything or harm women in some way.

I know myself nothing could be further from the truth, but if that's what you still choose to believe at this stage, you're more than welcome to continue believing it, that however doesn't change the facts.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

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.

Thank you for your reply, Call Me Jimmy.

I don't get the feeling we're looking at life through the same lens. Or that my post succintly conveyed to you what I was expressing. I do have the ability to care for other people - I have a lot, too much sometimes. However, I also feel like I am part of a wider picture, as I go through this life of mine on this sometimes peculiar planet.

I made efforts to make clear in my post that I'm not 'settled on life not being worth it'. On the contrary, I was saying that I hope my daughter thinks it's worth it.

I'm less vocal tonight so that's about all I can muster in response for now. Hope your Friday was good and the weekend is even better

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I had a brief read about anti natalist after reading Nozzferratthoo's post, and that doesn't represent my worldview.

If you feel like really testing your attention span there is a 2 hour discussion / debate here about anti natalism too. One person explaining it, and the other trying to pick holes in it.

The same interview is on You Tube if, like me, you are one of those people who likes to listen to such things at 1.25x or 1.5x speed

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What? You are not minimising but yet you prefix it with "potential" - seriously? Thats hugely contradictory to me. There are negative effects of the 8th amendment. Calling them potetial negative effects is completely minimising them and downplaying. Stop trying to create an endless round the houses wordplay about how you are not doing something when you are clearly doing it.

The reason I used the word potential with regards to the 8th amendment Joey is because of the many, many women who have been pregnant and who have given birth since the inception of the 8th amendment, a negligible amount of those women will have been negatively affected by it's existence. That's not downplaying it's negative effects, it's an acknowledgement that the negative effects are often over-stated by opponents to the 8th amendment.

I told you already I understand it. I would respectfully suggest at this point you accept that and move on.

kylith wrote: »

It's living tissue, certainly, but is it alive? In terms of the signifiers of life; growth, respiration, reaction, etc. it ranks lower than an amoeba.

it actually doesn't as it is likely to develop into a person which will have all those characteristics. therefore it ranks a billion times higher then an amoeba.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

the reality however is that the unborn even in it's first few weeks is above an ant, given that it will likely develop if not stopped, into a complex human person.

seamus wrote: »

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.

no, this is not accurate. the human cell that we are talking about, will develop into the human person. before hand it is still a human being and a life form. surviving independantly without a permanent connection to a biological host is not a valid method to judge whether one is a human being, given that part of the human development relies on a host for a time. there is absolutely plenty of ethical and logical basis to say that the unborn is a human being, and at a certain point will become a person. however some who would be in favour of abortion for non-extreme reasons, need to find something to dismiss reality so they can justify their viewpoints. the reality is that there are a number of those who would be in favour of abortion who don't believe in dismissing reality as they are confident in their viewpoint.

PhoenixParker wrote: »

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.

the organ donation argument isn't valid, given that there are potential for a couple of potential donors.
there is a huge difference between organ donation and the unborn child. abortion on demand is not a freedom or right in itself, as one doesn't have the right to specifically take a life unless absolutely necessary, therefore such would not go against bodily autonomy.
in relation to switching off life support, as you said yourself this is done where there is no chance of recovery. there is no comparison between that situation and the embryo, which if unhindered will develop into a human person.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you must have been reading very different posts as i can confirm jack has not said what you claim. the reality is that you want the content of jack's, and other people's posts to match up to the particular predetermined viewpoint you have of those with a different view to you.

why do you have to be so vicious toards people who don't agree with you?

Since up to now we have turned a blind eye to the thousands of women who go to Britain or elsewhere to terminate, I often wonder at the lack of extremism in those countries that provide the service in Europe (many of whom are Catholic) about the issue.

I often wonder if the same level of debate applied when abortion was introduced in Italy/Spain say for example, or was it democracy in action or something.

Never hear a peep now about any country in Europe that provides abortion apart from Malta and Ireland.

What is the reason for the acceptance everywhere else do you think?