The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

This post has been deleted.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

because from what i understand, the person admitted to procuring an abortion.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

of course not, but the evidence for an average murder is possible to get, unlike that for an abortion, which is hugely difficult to get and to prove such that a successful prosecution could take place.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

a urine test alone would not constitute sufficient evidence.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

but it would have been impossible to bring about a successful prosecution anyway, given that the evidence would not be sufficient.

nozzferrahhtoo

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed, there does seem to be an error going around that it means financial. There is a whole swath of meaning hidden behind "socio-economic".

Worse there seems to be an assumption that the ones that ARE "financial" in nature automatically means they are financially challenged.

This is not always the case. There are motivations from the other end of the financial spectrum, which would cause a woman to seek an abortion. They may be in an incredibly well paid job, their commitment and dedication to which precludes having and/or wanting a family.

There is a LOT more going on behind the term "socio-economic" than some seem to want to pretend.

This post has been deleted.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then as I said earlier I would help her in any way I could.

So, you offer to help her any way you can and she asks you to loan her the money to go to the UK for a termination because she does not want to be pregnant. What then?

Martina1991

end of the road wrote: »

not a valid reason for abortion on demand. essentially saying "it's aweful we have children in care so lets kill them before they are born instead"
of course it's aweful that we have children in care, but simply killing them off before they are born isn't the answer to that problem. looking at the reasons they are in care and dealing with those is the better option.

again abortion on demand isn't the solution to that, given that with people coming to ireland, we may end up with more birthrates anyway.

I am not talking about "killing" children. I'm talking about terminating a <12 week old fetus, as a last resort for the mother.

Your argument about looking at the reasons children are in care is just diverting the problem. Why not treat the cause rather than the effect.

Your last point is pure speculation. People immigrate and emigrate all the time. The population still continues to rise.

What problems do you see occurring if the 8th amendment is repealed?

[Deleted User]

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then as I said earlier I would help her in any way I could.

Because I understand though that these situations don't simply arise out of nothing, I would have already attempted to work towards a society where she would never find herself in that position in the first place. Idealistic? Absolutely. Impossible? Certainly not.

Ohh far, far, faaaaar from it bubblypop, and this is exactly what I mean when other posters here have implied that I don't care about women.

Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth, and that's why I don't like this argument either that assumes that because a young girl may currently be in a position where she feels she is unable to care for a child, and the further assumption that both she and her child would be a burden on the State - in my experience at least, that simply isn't true, and when young women are given the opportunity, not only are they incredibly resourceful, but they are more than capable not only of creating opportunities for themselves, but they are more than capable of raising children who themselves in turn also contribute greatly to society, and are not seen as the 'second class citizens', or the burden on the State that some people see them as or make them out to be to bolster their arguments as to why those women shouldn't have children.

They are second class citizens when it comes to their own healthcare & their own choices about their own body.
I never for a second said or insinuated that single mothers were second class citizens.
Rather ALL women are second class citizens, when a 6 week old embryo has an affect on their healthcare.

....... wrote: »

But the above assumes that such a young women might want a child if things were different.

What about women like me who never want to have children, ever, at all?

Or what about women who have already got children and do not want more, not out of a financial constraint, but because their family is big enough and they feel they have completed it.

What about women who have a high chance of passing on a genetic abnormality (this affects a member of my own extended family), who does not want to bear another child because of it - they already had one "accident" and although their child is unaffected, he is now a carrier and will have some tough decisions himself to make later on about whether or not it is ethical to have children.

Basically Jack - your utopia seems to only consider one type of woman, but the variety of reasons why women choose abortions is far beyond that. I know you have incorrectly interpreted "socio-economic reasons" as financial only, but reality is much more varied.

I know women who had abortions because of timing/finance/stage in life, but I also know women who had them because they already had children and didnt want more. I am someone who never wants children and I have described the situation of an extended family member above - there are many more and varied reasons that can easily be lumped under "socio-economic".

You appear to have missed both my reply to eviltwin in that same post, and my reply to WhiteRoses earlier, and not only that but for the second time now you have accused me of incorrectly interpreting socioeconomic reasons as financial only when I never made any such insinuation.

I'm not in the business of repeating myself for your benefit when you clearly indicate that you have no interest in what I've said many times already, and you still persist in claiming I've said things I haven't, or I've given you indications of things I haven't.

You obviously have a mental Wicker-man in your head that you feel needs burning badly, and you appear to have chosen me to represent said Wicker-man. I'm not in a position to be able to help you with that and quite frankly given your attitude, I don't wish I was either.

bubblypop wrote: »

They are second class citizens when it comes to their own healthcare & their own choices about their own body.
I never for a second said or insinuated that single mothers were second class citizens.
Rather ALL women are second class citizens, when a 6 week old embryo has an affect on their healthcare.

bubblypop I can see it from your perspective, but I don't agree with it, so I'll respectfully leave it there. I don't wish to get into an argument with you.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except all the reasons people have listed throughout the thread. Especially the fact that a sentient agent, for whole we should have moral and ethical concern, should not have their rights curtailed by a blob of non sentient matter inside their own body.

those reasons don't stack up in terms of allowing abortion on demand. a couple of them stack up in terms of extending the legislation that allows abortion in limited circumstances. the reality is that nobody's rights are being curtailed by not allowing abortion on demand, given that the unborn's right to life has some protection within the irish constitution, and there is no right to have an abortion on demand. + as stated, we cannot judge things on sentients alone, as sometimes that just isn't valid. this case being one of such, as it involves something that is likely to become sentient.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Aside from abortion what "better ways" exist to allow a woman who does not want to be pregnant, to not be pregnant? I can not wait to hear these better ways, especially as they are "far better" according to you. List them please.

It seems "far better" means far better for YOU not for them. And I doubt they, or I, should be judging what is better for THEM, based on what is nice for YOU.

it's not about me, it's about society, and the reality is that allowing the killing of the unborn without question or reason is not good for society, as over time it leads to a slow devaluation of other lives.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Everything, that is, except for allowing them the option they actually seek. Which is to take a non-sentient piece of biology out of their own bodies as should be their right. All on the notion that such a blob should have a right to life for no other reason that the Feelz of it.

Just because some single women can make it on their own in such situations, through ingenuity or resourcefulness does not mean A) They all do That their own hopes and dreams and life plans have been curtailed or destroyed or C) that they should be expected to just because someone else did/could.

because some people's hopes and dreams and life plans haven't gone to plan, does not mean we should give the unnecessary right to kill the unborn without question and without reason. it is possible that sadly even if these women didn't have a child, their plans would have not come to fruition anyway.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

for you to agree that i made it up, i would have had to have made it up, or claimed it. the fact is the right to become sentient is a defacto right rather then a specific right, given that the unborn have a right to be protected as per the constitution.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Ok, please quote where exactly the constitution clarifies between the pre-sentient and sentient and the bit about the right to protection in order to become sentient?

Still waiting on a reply to this, EOTR.

This post has been deleted.

kylith wrote: »

So, you offer to help her any way you can and she asks you to loan her the money to go to the UK for a termination because she does not want to be pregnant. What then?

Then not only will I give her the money but I'll make sure she has access to the best of treatment and care and aftercare with people I know and would trust with my own life, and I don't ask any questions, and I don't want to be paid back. I'd have thought that was an obvious conclusion from my replies to both WhiteRoses and eviltwin earlier. This really isn't as difficult to understand as some people are making it out to be at all at all.

This post has been deleted.

Martina1991 wrote: »

I am not talking about "killing" children. I'm talking about terminating a <12 week old fetus, as a last resort for the mother.

i know that, hence i said "unborn" rather then children. we rightly don't kill children because they end up in the care system, so to me, killing the unborn because a couple of them may end up in the care system, is not an exceptible outcome either.

Martina1991 wrote: »

Your argument about looking at the reasons children are in care is just diverting the problem. Why not treat the cause rather than the effect.

that's what looking at the issues that cause children to end up in care would do, treat the cause.

Martina1991 wrote: »

What problems do you see occurring if the 8th amendment is repealed?

abortion on demand is the issue i have with repealing the 8th. if that issue is not there, then i would gladly vote repeal.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it is not rubbish and i have not said that we don't do it because it's not viable. yes we voted not to do it, but the reality is even if we didn't, there could not be sufficient evidence gathered to bring about a prosecution for having an abortion. the burdin of proof within our court system is quite high for a start, and neither side could ultimately prove anything sufficiently.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Still waiting on a reply to this, EOTR.

i gave you a reply. it's a defacto right, rather then a constitutional right. the constitutional right is that the unborn have a right to have their lives protected as much as is practical, therefore defacto, they have a right to become sentient.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then not only will I give her the money but I'll make sure she has access to the best of treatment and care and aftercare with people I know and would trust with my own life, and I don't ask any questions, and I don't want to be paid back. I'd have thought that was an obvious conclusion from my replies to both WhiteRoses and eviltwin earlier. This really isn't as difficult to understand as some people are making it out to be at all at all.

So your position is not about stopping abortions or saving the 'lives' of the unborn. It's about making sure that women have to travel to a foreign country to have them.

Glad to clear that up.

nozzferrahhtoo

Still Ignoring then and dodging then? Something you claimed you never do?

AGAIN: You claimed to have replied to my posts, and took exception when I called that claim a lie. Can you please direct me to the replies you JUST explicitly claimed you wrote? To posts #2369 #2519 #2583 #4060 #4239 #4409?

end of the road wrote: »

those reasons don't stack up in terms of allowing abortion on demand.

More assertion then? You never back any of this up. This is not logical. That does not stack up. That is not right. This has to be done. This should be this way. Assertion after assertion with never a single "because" following it.

The simple fact is you have not a SHRED of argument to offer as to why the rights, choices and well being of a sentient agent should be curtailed by something that simply is not. To get there you merely INVENT a "right to become sentient" and then engage in linguistic acrobatics to dodge defending the claim for such a right.

What is more when I compare a sentient machine, not yet on, with a fetus, and ask why one has the "right to be sentient" and the other does not, you simply run away and dodge the question. Dodge. Duck. Ignore. run. What an MO you are building.

end of the road wrote: »

the reality is that nobody's rights are being curtailed by not allowing abortion on demand

But I did not say "rights" did I? I said "Rights, well being and choices". You ignore entire posts sometimes, but then ignore parts of sentences the rest of the time.

end of the road wrote: »

given that the unborn's right to life has some protection within the irish constitution

Do keep up, we are talking about CHANGING that constitution. I am aware of what he constitution says NOW thanks. I do not need a lesser understanding of it offered to replace my own. What I am discussing is what changes SHOULD be made and more importantly WHY they should be made..... rather than simply asserting things that should change or should not change like you do and then running away.

end of the road wrote: »

we cannot judge things on sentients alone, as sometimes that just isn't valid.

Why cant we? And when is it not valid? And not just when but WHY? Merely saying "now" as part of your assert-athon is not answering the question. Even a little.

end of the road wrote: »

this case being one of such, as it involves something that is likely to become sentient.

And why should the likelyhood to become sentient be of moral or ethical concern other than your assertion that it should? Have you any arguments, other than repetition of the claim, to support the claim?

end of the road wrote: »

it's not about me, it's about society

My point exactly, thanks. So when you claim something is "far better" you need to explain why it is "far better" other than what is "far better" for YOU. Merely asserting it is "far better" for society without engaging in any argument as to why it is so..... is dodging the question/challenge.

end of the road wrote: »

the reality is that allowing the killing of the unborn without question or reason is not good for society, as over time it leads to a slow devaluation of other lives.

No. It does not. It allows us to VALUE life by specifying exactly what it is we value. After all we kill cow after cow without ever "devaluing life". We chop down tree after tree without "devaluing life".

What we should do is talk about what IS of value. Clearly it is not just "life" as we end life all the time. So there must be something more about "human life" that makes us value it. And that "something more" I feel is the faculty of consciousness and sentience. A faculty that, bully for you, the fetus simply lacks. But rather than acknowledge that you simply assert that the potential to be sentient is of value. But despite MULTIPLE attempts I have not yet gotten you to defend or support that position. Nor, I suspect, will I.

end of the road wrote: »

it is possible that sadly even if these women didn't have a child, their plans would have not come to fruition anyway.

Of course it is. But that is their journey to find out. Their journey to find that out one way or the other, should not be curtailed by a blob of non-sentient matter inside THEIR body that they don't want in there.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

i gave you a reply. it's a defacto right, rather then a constitutional right. the constitutional right is that the unborn have a right to have their lives protected as much as is practical, therefore defacto, they have a right to become sentient.

No, sorry, that's your interpretation of the constitution. The constitution doesn't actually specifically say that, at all.

You seem to have a massive issue with distinguishing the difference between your opinion and facts.

The reality is the constitution says sweet f all about sentience and pre-sentience and defacto rights, and you made that up to support your argument.
FYI, this is why people don't take you seriously in these threads.

pilly

end of the road wrote: »

i know that, hence i said "unborn" rather then children. we rightly don't kill children because they end up in the care system, so to me, killing the unborn because a couple of them may end up in the care system, is not an exceptible outcome either.

that's what looking at the issues that cause children to end up in care would do, treat the cause.

abortion on demand is the issue i have with repealing the 8th. if that issue is not there, then i would gladly vote repeal.

My New Years wish for you EOTR is that you will learn two things this year:

1. How to use capital letters.
2. To state something as an opinion rather than fact.

Just because you believe something that does not mean it's a fact, understand?

kylith wrote: »

So your position is not about stopping abortions or saving the 'lives' of the unborn. It's about making sure that women have to travel to a foreign country to have them.

Glad to clear that up.

You do know that instead of assuming my position on things, you could just ask?

No? No? I guess not then.

Well whatever that cleared up for you I guess as long as you're happy we're all good.

Loafing Oaf

Varadkar says accepting recommendations on Eighth a ‘strong option’
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-says-accepting-recommendations-on-eighth-a-strong-option-1.3356004?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fvaradkar-says-accepting-recommendations-on-eighth-a-strong-option-1.3356004

Ooh Leo you tease...

ohnonotgmail

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Varadkar says accepting recommendations on Eighth a ‘strong option’
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-says-accepting-recommendations-on-eighth-a-strong-option-1.3356004?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fvaradkar-says-accepting-recommendations-on-eighth-a-strong-option-1.3356004

Ooh Leo you tease...

that man talks out of both sides of his mouth.

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No, sorry, that's your interpretation of the constitution. The constitution doesn't actually specifically say that, at all.

i never claimed the constitution said it. i have been clear that what i stated is defacto due to an actual right. this is very simple to understand.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The reality is the constitution says sweet f all about sentience and pre-sentience and defacto rights, and you made that up to support your argument.

again i never said it did, you are the one saying that i am saying it did. i made nothing up, i was clear that it is a defacto right.

Loafing Oaf

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Also, he wants to be seen to 'give his TDS' space to come to the 'right' decision on the issue, rather than pressurising them into 'following the leader'.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You do know that instead of assuming my position on things, you could just ask?

What like I did THREE TIMES and you still have not actually answered any of what was asked?

No? No? No? I guess not then.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

i never claimed the constitution said it. i have been clear that what i stated is defacto due to an actual right. this is very simple to understand.

again i never said it did, you are the one saying that i am saying it did. i made nothing up, i was clear that it is a defacto right.

You didn't say anything about defacto in your original post. You said the pre-sentient have the right to protection in order to become sentient.
So I asked you for the source for the law you were quoting, and you came up empty.
For truth, the below is what you originally posted. I've bolded the bits where you made up the law, to make things easier for you:

end of the road wrote: »

it's not viable to operate on the basis of sentients only. the pre-sentient, as in the unborn, who will (unless circumstances prevent it) will become sentient, have to be given protection, to insure their right to become sentient is upheld as much is practically possible.
the reality in relation to abortion on demand, is that when it is legislated for (at least in terms of countries like britain).....