Spanish Eyes wrote: » Why are you asking me? No the Bill will not be voted on by us individually. That is for the Oireachtas to vote on, on our behalf. Democracy rules. If the referendum is carried, abortion will no longer be cast ironed in the Constitution, so will be legislated for, going forward and all that.
c.p.w.g.w wrote: » But will those things be voted on, or will they need to be agreed before the repeal or not vote takes place
....... wrote: » Are you back with this nonsense plus added personal attacks now?
....... wrote: » Again, for someone who claims to have so much mysterious experience with pregnant women you are sadly ignorant of the factual reality out there.
....... wrote: » Right - so if you understand the facts - then stop minimising them.
c.p.w.g.w wrote: » Has there been any word from government on what will replace the 8th Amendment? Or are we just voting on whether to remove it or not?
The Government will continue to prepare legislation along the lines of the committee recommendations, with the intention of publishing the heads of a Bill to allow abortion — which would include a summary of the Bill’s intentions – before any referendum. No other legislative proposals on abortion are being prepared.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » There will be a Heads of Bill outlining the rules, such as twelve weeks, FFA and etc. I think. But sure we know all that already.
Zerbini Blewitt wrote: » Isaac burke (a self-identified Christian anti-choicer) keeps appearing on my youtube ads. He is complaining his group has been bullied & silenced in NUI, Galway for 4 years Is this the start of the flow of “keep the 8th money” from the US or maybe his parents are paying for this?
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Well pretty much everywhere else in Europe has long accepted the enlightenment and the separation of church and state. So when 'liberal abortion' became a thing In the 60s and 70s, it was generally adopted as just one more extension of individual freedoms. Reading a biography of Roy Jenkins a while ago, I had the general impression that he was pushing at an open door with his 'liberal reforms'.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » 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?
drkpower wrote: » 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.
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?
end of the road wrote: » 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.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Saying an embryo is alive and human is not enough. My appendix is alive. It is clearly a human appendix. Is it a human life? Nope. Calling an embryo "new life" is already loaded language.
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. Even the 8th amendment does not go so far as to say that the "unborn" is a human being.
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.
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.
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.
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.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
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.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
Fizzlesque wrote: » I had a brief read about anti natalist after reading Nozzferratthoo's post, and that doesn't represent my worldview.
....... wrote: » Word salading wont change what you said. True colours indeed.
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.
....... 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.
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.
