The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Yeah despite his "instead of assuming my position on things, you could just ask" narrative I asked him about that one too and, you guessed it, NOTHING in response.

The claim was "after abortion was legislated for in a society, the gap between those people who are living in poverty and those people who are wealthy, widened enormously" and I did not see anything from him supporting that.

• No mention which countries he was talking about for example.
• No mention of what the gap was before abortion in those countries, compared to what it was after.
• No mention of whether there was already such a trend towards that separation already.
• No mention of the fact that that is a gap widening already worldwide.
• No mention of whether the trend he claimed normalized for trends already there.
• No mention of evidence elevating the claim past the correlation-causation divide.

Nothing. Literally nothing supporting the claim. Not. A. Word. But you know..... you just have to ask about his position....... but when you do..... he claims he just doesn't want to talk to you anyway.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

politics shouldn't have a say in the decisions a doctor and patient make. none.

decisions should be made on the medical needs of the patient and not on society's opinion of what is best for the patient. or what politicians deem they feel is the correct thing for patients.

agreed. however, allowing abortion on demand goes beyond where such a stance is reasonable.

Edward M wrote: »

Like a lethal injection maybe?
What about illegal drugs?

Well yes, what about them indeed! Voluntary euthanasia between a doctor and the patient, under regulations, would indeed be another example.

And for the most part I do think drugs should be a persons own business in the same way alcohol is. Though we have this umbrella term "drugs" for such a wide range of things that it really makes sense to consider drugs on a case by case basis, but a good majority of them should be legal. Maybe even them all.

I think people's rights to decide what to do with their own body should generally only be curtailed by it's impact on other sentient agents. Abortion in the 0-16 week period does not impact other sentient agents. Because the fetus is not even remotely sentient. It not only lacks it, it lacks many of the prerequisites for it too.

So not sure what you are asking here really. But it does give me a chance to test a point.... if we just wait....

Edward M wrote: »

That's what I was just testing myself.
Its proper to take in to consideration peoples overall views with regard to all laws regarding what can and can't be done with ones body.

Indeed, and I do believe drug taking, and lethal injection are personal and/or between a doctor and patient. That is not to say they should not be regulated, controlled, and laws built around them (such as we do with, say, alcohol and things like, say, drunk driving, public intoxication, and so forth).

The arguments against such things are pretty paltry, though the arguments against abortion the most paltry of the three.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

did it occur to you at any stage that I would have a different relationship with the people I know than those with whom I have no relationship whatsoever?

EotR keeps telling me that not everyone who supports the 8th is a good Christian, but sometimes I forget.

end of the road wrote: »

the over-population argument is a bit of a red herring really as parts of the world are actually becoming under-populated, and it's not viable to simply bring people from the populated parts to those parts that are under-populated.

And Ireland would be one of those countries heading for under-population if it wasn't for immigration. Ireland's fertility rate is already 0.2 below the population replacement rate of 2.1. The UK-style abortion regime proposed by our short-sighted politicians would further reduce that by a fifth, directing us firmly towards under-population or mass-immigration, but more-immediately increasing the ratio of elderly to young, and all the socio-economic problems that entails.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

EotR keeps telling me that not everyone who supports the 8th is a good Christian, but sometimes I forget.

That's a bit cryptic Zub, sorry.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm not an expert, but I understand that Jesus instructed his followers to look after the poor, the sick, foreigners and those in prison.

Your attitude expressed above is human rights and access to the very best medical care for your friends and relations and screw the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison.

But I never suggested screw the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison? This is what I don't get, like what's with the extremes? 'If it's not one it must be the other' kind of thing. I don't point fingers at anyone here and ask what are they doing about the poor, the sick, asylum seekers and those in prison, because I assume each one of us does what we can, where we can, when we can.

Of course I'm going to treat people whom I know differently than those I don't, there's nothing bizarre about that? I mean, if you play it out, and I don't normally do hypotheticals, but even when it concerns medical care for my own family, we're covered by private healthcare. You don't surely expect that I should also provide for my neighbours private healthcare?

I wouldn't expect that of anyone, so I don't know what your deal is there tbh. In the case of my hypothetical granddaughter, do you not think as I mentioned earlier to I think it was bubblypop that I would have instilled in her my own values, as opposed to someone completely unknown to me who may or may not share my values or your values or have a different set of values entirely to both of us, for example suggesting that racism and sexism in this fúcking country killed a rich woman like Savita and I should know my place?

I'm absolutely certain I do know my place, though I don't think that woman and I have the same place in mind :pac:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So you are evidence for EotR's claim that there is no necessary connection between supporting the 8th and being a good Christian.

I just don't get this? I'm evidence of someone else's claim that there is no necessary connection between supporting the 8th and being a good Christian? Sure I could have told you that myself. I'm not going to judge anyone who identifies as Christian and has had an abortion? It simply wouldn't be a relevant consideration for me. If someone isn't attempting to pass judgement on me, we're going to get along just fine.

In my experience that philosophy isn't unique to Christians.

Voting to keep the 8th, knowing the impact it has on the less fortunate, when you are in the privileged position of being able to travel and willing to do so if your loved one requires an abortion is a disgusting scummy thing to do.

eviltwin wrote: »

Voting to keep the 8th, knowing the impact it has on the less fortunate, when you are in the privileged position of being able to travel and willing to do so if your loved one requires an abortion is a disgusting scummy thing to do.

Classic "do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

Demanding that something is made illegal for everyone else while keeping a back door open for yourself and your family to avoid it, is the height of hypocrisy.

A prime example of someone with a completely messed up moral compass; one that only applies to others and not to themselves. And that is the root of all of the corruption that has beset this country at the hands of the Catholic Church.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can those people access the care you would get for your grand-daughter?

No.

Why not?

The Eighth Amendment makes it illegal.

Are you going to vote to repeal it?

No.

Why not, aren't they legally allowed the same care you would want for your grand daughter?

No, screw them.

I'm still not saying screw them, my granddaughter is still subject to the same laws as they are.

But you aren't going to do what you can. You are doing your best to convince people to keep the 8th in place, and make the care you want for your family illegal for these people. You are trying to stop us doing what we can for these people (on this particular subject).

I'm not trying to stop you doing anything you want for anyone, I have no doubt you've been doing all you can for them already throughout your life. That's no different to what I've been doing throughout my life, we just appear to have different approaches is all.

I'm not saying it is bizarre, I am saying it is morally wrong to keep treatment you (and I) can get for our families illegal for these people.

But their welfare has more to do with their immigrant status than anything to do with the 8th amendment? It would be logical to do something about that than use their current circumstances to bolster your own lack of an argument to repeal the 8th amendment.

Using your rationale, any woman who votes to keep the 8th amendment in place is immoral, and should feel guilty for not voting the way you would want them to vote. How far do you imagine that's going to fly?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Using your rationale, any woman who votes to keep the 8th amendment in place is immoral, and should feel guilty for not voting the way you would want them to vote.

Not sure why you are singling women out here, I feel the same way about men. I disagree with people who will vote to keep the 8th, but I do not think it makes them immoral, I think we disagree on matters which define our moral views.

But anyone who thinks like you do, that we should vote to keep the 8th and then send our lucky kids to England for the treatment we just voted to keep illegal here for the less fortunate, yes, they are as immoral as you are.

end of the road wrote: »

oh yes they do have a right to life, it's not my opinion but fact. the constitution guarantees their right to life and to guarantee such protection "as much as is practical"

Yes, and your own personal interpretation of "as much as is practical" includes the garbage you were spouting about the right for protection for the pre-sentient.

It never actually said anything about pre-sentient rights. You thinking that's what it means does not make it so. Its merely your opinion.