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

Zubeneschamali

Intothesea wrote: »

I'm stating my evaluation of the fetus's right to life, and from whence it comes.

Well, sure, but the fetus doesn't have that right to life as you stated it in law today. Abortion is legal here under some circumstances, and women have a Constitutional Right, enacted by referendum, to travel abroad for abortions.

nozzferrahhtoo

Intothesea wrote: »

There's no inherent or otherwise statement of what I want people to do when they create a new life. I'm stating my evaluation of the fetus's right to life, and from whence it comes.

but that is exactly the problem for me. You did not state "from whence it comes". you referred TO that right to life. Talked about how important it is. But a discussion of where it comes from, and why and when it is applied.... is simply not in your post. Or if it is I missed it, despite having read it 5 times.

Intothesea wrote: »

That was quick, Nozz

I am a rather fast typist

It has been commented on before. The high speed clicking drives people around me in the office nuts

Intothesea wrote: »

I didn't say I believed a fetus's brain could make any sense or otherwise process information from the ears at 16 weeks, merely that the system was in place.

I did not say you said it. It is the "system being in place" point I am addressing. The system is at best PARTIALLY in place. But it is far from complete. And far from operating at any level that will produce consciousness, sentience, or much in the way of processing of music.

We do have a user around here who is rather impressed with the fetal response to music. He posted once a paper on the subject. When you play music to the fetus, certain autonomic responses occur. Including oral movements.

In trying to describe what this movement LOOKS LIKE the writer of the paper said it looks like the fetus "trying to speak". Which the boards user in question appears to have parsed as if the fetus actually was trying to speak.

But aside from his massive misinterpretation of the text, there is little in the fetal response to music to make coherent a discussion of the level of wiring in place, and yet to be in place, in fetal development at that particular time.

Intothesea wrote: »

As well, if time is the only non-negotiable feature separating an implanted fertilized egg from a viable kid, then any line in the sand about when to give the fetus its most fundamental right is by definition just an arbitrary line in the sand.

Some are more arbitrary than others, but I do not think one line in the sand is automatically equivalent to any other. Some have more coherent foundations than arbitrarily picked moments of convenience like "implantation " and "conception" truly are arbitrary.

But I believe context is important in all things, and context can make things less arbitrary. We are discussing at this moment rights. Specifically the "right to life" but we are discussing rights.

Where do rights come from? What mediates them, assigns them, makes sense of them? Unless you have some unsubstantiated notions about the existence of some god deity.... then rights are a purely human construct that originates in consciousness and sentience. Rights are in the business of mediating the actions and well being of sentient conscious beings. Therefore central to the entire concept AND purpose of rights is consciousness and sentience.

So it is not entirely "arbitrary" to suggest that perhaps it is TO consciousness and sentience we are assigning rights. And as such there is no coherent basis to afford rights to an entity that lacks that faculty not just slightly but ENTIRELY.

Give or take 98% of all choice based abortion happens in or before week 16. In fact over 90% in or before week 12. And everything we know about consciousness and sentience tells us the fetus lacks the faculty ENTIRELY. If we imagine consciousness as analogous to radio waves.... then a 16 week old fetus is a context where not only is there no radio waves, and not only has the broadcast tower not been turned on....... the broadcast tower is not even BUILT yet.

So I see no coherent basis for affording ANY rights, let alone a specific one, to a fetus at that stage. And I see little arbitrary about that conclusion.

Intothesea

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, I'm guessing that parents would feel differently about an incumbent kid if they felt their innate responsibility to raise or otherwise deal with a situation of their own making. But, I'm not here to argue these things to death.

I realise the repeal the 8th is an aspect of the response of neo-liberal reformulation of society where some sector of the society is going to have to take the hit for the uncertain, insecure, and totally financially stressed situation people find themselves in.

2 people must work to rent let alone buy a house, jobs are not remotely guaranteed, the government has checked out of protecting the people of Ireland from unlivable conditions. I get it. I still think it's a disaster though.

Intothesea

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No that is not "known" at all. The "wiring" of the brain is an ongoing process over the entire development of the fetus and even beyond birth. There is no one time that "the wiring is known to be there". "Wiring" may be present of a sort at that stage but "the wiring" is a nebulous concept and a fuzzy basis at best to decide such important matters.

The reality is simply much more complex than you are describing. To quote directly from one publication on the matter:

"It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed."

And I doubt there is any evidence that this is connected with WHEN you decided to start exposing them to music. Rather, the fact you are interacting with the musically today over 4 years later suggests and music comprehension they have has been due to their ongoing exposure to it over their entire life so far.

And I am pro-choice because I go one step further than you. In that I agree with everything you just wrote but I ALSO go on to work out when, why, and on what basis we assign rights to other entities. I believe, like you, that the right to life is fundamental and paramount. I just likely disagree with you as to WHEN the fetus attains that right.

I simply see no argument at all, least of all on this thread, as to why that right should come online in the first 16 weeks of gestation. I can think of no attribute the fetus has at that time which validates or makes coherent the allocation of rights to it.

That was quick, Nozz

I didn't say I believed a fetus's brain could make any sense or otherwise process information from the ears at 16 weeks, merely that the system was in place.

As well, if time is the only non-negotiable feature separating an implanted fertilized egg from a viable kid, then any line in the sand about when to give the fetus its most fundamental right is by definition just an arbitrary line in the sand.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Intothesea

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's no inherent or otherwise statement of what I want people to do when they create a new life. I'm stating my evaluation of the fetus's right to life, and from whence it comes.

nozzferrahhtoo

Intothesea wrote: »

It's known that by 16 weeks the wiring between ears and brain is present.

No that is not "known" at all. The "wiring" of the brain is an ongoing process over the entire development of the fetus and even beyond birth. There is no one time that "the wiring is known to be there". "Wiring" may be present of a sort at that stage but "the wiring" is a nebulous concept and a fuzzy basis at best to decide such important matters.

The reality is simply much more complex than you are describing. To quote directly from one publication on the matter:

"It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed."

Intothesea wrote: »

I made a point to play the piano for my twins from day 1 of this week until d-day. Today at 4 years old they both have perfect pitch, and a relationship with music that is beyond my comprehension.

And I doubt there is any evidence that this is connected with WHEN you decided to start exposing them to music. Rather, the fact you are interacting with the musically today over 4 years later suggests and music comprehension they have has been due to their ongoing exposure to it over their entire life so far.

Intothesea wrote: »

I oppose abortion on the basis that the right to your own life is the most fundamental of all rights, and implicitly understand that this right precedes all others in importance.

And I am pro-choice because I go one step further than you. In that I agree with everything you just wrote but I ALSO go on to work out when, why, and on what basis we assign rights to other entities. I believe, like you, that the right to life is fundamental and paramount. I just likely disagree with you as to WHEN the fetus attains that right.

I simply see no argument at all, least of all on this thread, as to why that right should come online in the first 16 weeks of gestation. I can think of no attribute the fetus has at that time which validates or makes coherent the allocation of rights to it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Intothesea

It's known that by 16 weeks the wiring between ears and brain is present. I made a point to play the piano for my twins from day 1 of this week until d-day. Today at 4 years old they both have perfect pitch, and a relationship with music that is beyond my comprehension.

I oppose abortion on the basis that the right to your own life is the most fundamental of all rights, and implicitly understand that this right precedes all others in importance. I also understand that the only factor that separates an implanted fertilized egg from a viable child is time. Time is one factor we have no say over; therefore it is a willful act of destruction to interfere with this process.

As well, the joy in the life of a child is determined mostly by the attitude and investment of its parents, and not quite as directly on social or economic factors. Attitudes to the job at hand define the experience of the kid for this reason.

What better ray of hope for a kid than knowing your parents toughed out all the inconvenient, negative, troublesome factors and fought their best fight to give you your most fundamental right?

Alright, that's my 0.02, slice and dice as you will

.......

This post has been deleted.

mrkiscool2

pemay wrote: »

What is that, something caught in your throat? bruh, blurgh? Or maybe youre copying the language of americans of a certain demographic? Why would you do that?

How its a meme.....no idea.

The two don't equate at all.......not true. Its a joke, one with tongue in cheek, but theres some truth in its fallacy of justification and wilful blindness.

It's a sh1tposting meme, where you just change a few things someone else said to make the post funnier. In your case, you just tried to equate abortion to murder. If that's what you find funny, fair play.

Also, no, there is no equating murder and abortion, therefore trying to say that "there's some truth in it's fallacy of justification and wilful blindness" isn't correct. If you're going to make a witty joke make sure a. it's actually funny and b. is what you claim it's supposed to be.

pemay

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Nice meme bruh.

Seriously though, the two don't equate in anyway at all. Up until at least 17 weeks, a fetus isn't scientifically life. Secondly, an axe-murder isn't carrying me around, I'm not draining them of food, energy, water, oxygen. I'm not going to be reliant on them for at least 18 years or have a terrible life when put into care, having all those questions. Bad argument is bad.

What is that, something caught in your throat? bruh, blurgh? Or maybe youre copying the language of americans of a certain demographic? Why would you do that?

How its a meme.....no idea.

The two don't equate at all.......not true. Its a joke, one with tongue in cheek, but theres some truth in its fallacy of justification and wilful blindness.

mrkiscool2

pemay wrote: »

This is one of the most common arguments I've heard. "Well, if murder was legal, you may have been killed. How do you feel about that?"

I always have the same answer.
A. My local psychotic axe-maniac does not believe in murder, she would never murder. (But she is pro-choice, she believes psychotics should have the choice, even if she personally would never murder).
B. Even if she did put an axe through my head, I wouldn't know. If she thought she could get away with it, for whatever reason, I would never ever know.
C. Even if, by the most bizarre thing ever, I did know my local psychotic axe-maniac had murdered me I would be happy for her and respect her choice. There must have been some reason for it and, ultimately, I'd rather be murdered than be alive in a town where the local axe-maniac didnt have the choice to put an axe through my head.

I've an amazing local maniac, and I am very lucky to be still drawing breath. But what about people not murdered by axe-maniacs who wanted to murder them? Can the pro-life side absolutely, 100% guarantee they'd have as good a life as someone who was never in danger of having their head split in two? I don't think so.

Nice meme bruh.

Seriously though, the two don't equate in anyway at all. Up until at least 17 weeks, a fetus isn't scientifically life. Secondly, an axe-murder isn't carrying me around, I'm not draining them of food, energy, water, oxygen. I'm not going to be reliant on them for at least 18 years or have a terrible life when put into care, having all those questions. Bad argument is bad.

pemay

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

This is one of the most common arguments I've heard. "Well, if abortion was legal, you may not have been born. How do you feel about that?"

I always have the same answer.
A. My mother does not believe in abortion, she would never get one. (But she is pro-choice, she believes women should have the choice, even if she personally would never get one).
B. Even if she did and wanted to abort me, I wouldn't know. If she thought she couldn't have me, for whatever reason, I would never ever know.
C. Even if, by the most bizarre thing ever, I did know my mother aborted me I would be happy for her and respect her choice. There must have been some reason for it and, ultimately, I'd rather not be born than be born to a mother that did not want me.

I've an amazing Mam, and I am very lucky to be wanted and loved and cherished. But what about children born to women who wanted to abort them? Can the pro-life side absolutely, 100% guarantee they'd have as good a life as someone who was planned and/or wanted? I don't think so.

This is one of the most common arguments I've heard. "Well, if murder was legal, you may have been killed. How do you feel about that?"

I always have the same answer.
A. My local psychotic axe-maniac does not believe in murder, she would never murder. (But she is pro-choice, she believes psychotics should have the choice, even if she personally would never murder).
B. Even if she did put an axe through my head, I wouldn't know. If she thought she could get away with it, for whatever reason, I would never ever know.
C. Even if, by the most bizarre thing ever, I did know my local psychotic axe-maniac had murdered me I would be happy for her and respect her choice. There must have been some reason for it and, ultimately, I'd rather be murdered than be alive in a town where the local axe-maniac didnt have the choice to put an axe through my head.

I've an amazing local maniac, and I am very lucky to be still drawing breath. But what about people not murdered by axe-maniacs who wanted to murder them? Can the pro-life side absolutely, 100% guarantee they'd have as good a life as someone who was never in danger of having their head split in two? I don't think so.

mrkiscool2

Edward M wrote: »

I know you can put up links to your stats.
But look at this one.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/07/07/myth-about-abortion-and-crime.html

I read through that and it actually hurt my brain. The amount of logical leaps made in that article is bizarre. Like, the idea that children born out of wedlock some how, for some reason never explained, reduced crime is an odd one. That's just one of the many poor assertions the author makes and backs up with some study that has nothing to do with drop in crime rate. In fact, in the same article, they prove themselves wrong by showing that "unwanted" children are more likely to commit crime.

Muahahaha

seamus wrote: »

That's funny, because as a pro-choice voter I feel exactly the same way about Kate O'Connell.

She pisses off the religious and the pro-life side no end by just not being a quiet little lady and keeping her mouth shut. These aren't the people she's ever going to convince, but by making them more and more annoyed, she exposes just how much of their motivations like in bigotry and doctrine, not logic or ethics.

She reminds me a lot of a young Mary Robinson, but Kate has the benefit that the sneering arrogant assholes like William Binchy are no longer automatically assumed to be authorities they're male and catholic.

Kate has spoken a lot on topics that she knows since she was elected and always knocks it out of the park. But her speech last week really made me feel that there's proper Taoiseach potential in her.

Funnily enough I mentioned the same to a mate last week, that she would be a great bet to be Irelands first female Taoiseach. No odds on Paddy Power though

In fairness to her for someone who backed Coveney and got cast to the back benches she has made quite some impact since. She has a bright future ahead. Also she has the best hair in the Dail too.

frag420

Edward M wrote: »

I know you can put up links to your stats.
But look at this one.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/07/07/myth-about-abortion-and-crime.html

Fox News ha ha ha!! Surely you can do better than that!

Good to see EOTR back slapping his pro life pals too....

Edward M

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Really? Can you distinguish between children who were unplanned and children whose mothers wanted to abort them? Because I guarantee you accidents that are then kept vs accidents the mother wanted to abort have vastly different levels of life. Again, statistics in the USA show this to be true, both a drop in crime rate and a drop in the level of children in care.

I know you can put up links to your stats.
But look at this one.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/07/07/myth-about-abortion-and-crime.html

mrkiscool2

Edward M wrote: »

There's no guarantees in any life, whether wanted or not.
I'm quite sure every wanted baby didn't have as good a life as might have been planned for them by their parents, just as I'm sure most unwanted pregnancies carried to term went on to lead perfectly happy and normal lives.
Many, if not most unwanted pregnancies turn in to very loved and cherished children and adults id say.

Really? Can you distinguish between children who were unplanned and children whose mothers wanted to abort them? Because I guarantee you accidents that are then kept vs accidents the mother wanted to abort have vastly different levels of life. Again, statistics in the USA show this to be true, both a drop in crime rate and a drop in the level of children in care.

Edward M

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Can the pro-life side absolutely, 100% guarantee they'd have as good a life as someone who was planned and/or wanted? I don't think so.

There's no guarantees in any life, whether wanted or not.
I'm quite sure every wanted baby didn't have as good a life as might have been planned for them by their parents, just as I'm sure most unwanted pregnancies carried to term went on to lead perfectly happy and normal lives.
Many, if not most unwanted pregnancies turn in to very loved and cherished children and adults id say.

mrkiscool2

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The fetus at 0-16 weeks when the near totality (usually around 98%) of abortions take place does not HAVE a voice to deny. There is no lights on, no one is home.

But even then retrospective issues with abortion do not convince me or appeal to me as useful at all. Those who have been aborted are not there to worry about it. Those of us who are not, were not. It is an "appeal to emotion" approach to the issue of abortion that does not work on me at all.

If my mother had not wanted me, I would hate to think she lived in a time where she was forced to have me. I would rather not have existed, than to have been forced on anyone against their will. Except you all here on boards.ie. You get me, whether you want me or not

So for me it is more a case of "Yikes. I (and probably you) were conceived in a place and time where our mothers were denied that voice."

This is one of the most common arguments I've heard. "Well, if abortion was legal, you may not have been born. How do you feel about that?"

I always have the same answer.
A. My mother does not believe in abortion, she would never get one. (But she is pro-choice, she believes women should have the choice, even if she personally would never get one).
B. Even if she did and wanted to abort me, I wouldn't know. If she thought she couldn't have me, for whatever reason, I would never ever know.
C. Even if, by the most bizarre thing ever, I did know my mother aborted me I would be happy for her and respect her choice. There must have been some reason for it and, ultimately, I'd rather not be born than be born to a mother that did not want me.

I've an amazing Mam, and I am very lucky to be wanted and loved and cherished. But what about children born to women who wanted to abort them? Can the pro-life side absolutely, 100% guarantee they'd have as good a life as someone who was planned and/or wanted? I don't think so.

Edward M

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

:rolleyes:

At least you put in the whole quote.
The highlighted bit you roll eyes at I suppose?
In its context, a big clear IMO at the end.
I'd hardly oppose abortion on demand if I didn't think they should have the baby, except in certain circumstances, but that's IN MY OPINION, not an instruction.
I hope that clears that up once and for all.

captbarnacles

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The fetus at 0-16 weeks when the near totality (usually around 98%) of abortions take place does not HAVE a voice to deny. There is no lights on, no one is home.

But even then retrospective issues with abortion do not convince me or appeal to me as useful at all. Those who have been aborted are not there to worry about it. Those of us who are not, were not. It is an "appeal to emotion" approach to the issue of abortion that does not work on me at all.

If my mother had not wanted me, I would hate to think she lived in a time where she was forced to have me. I would rather not have existed, than to have been forced on anyone against their will. Except you all here on boards.ie. You get me, whether you want me or not

So for me it is more a case of "Yikes. I (and probably you) were conceived in a place and time where our mothers were denied that voice."

Yeah this is a weird one for me. I have no doubt I would not exist if my very Catholic parents believed contraception was not sinful. Doesn't mean I'm glad though, it was outrageous that they accepted that.

nozzferrahhtoo

EirWatchr wrote: »

Yikes. I (and probably you) were conceived in a place and time where someone couldn't legally deny us that voice.

The fetus at 0-16 weeks when the near totality (usually around 98%) of abortions take place does not HAVE a voice to deny. There is no lights on, no one is home.

But even then retrospective issues with abortion do not convince me or appeal to me as useful at all. Those who have been aborted are not there to worry about it. Those of us who are not, were not. It is an "appeal to emotion" approach to the issue of abortion that does not work on me at all.

If my mother had not wanted me, I would hate to think she lived in a time where she was forced to have me. I would rather not have existed, than to have been forced on anyone against their will. Except you all here on boards.ie. You get me, whether you want me or not

So for me it is more a case of "Yikes. I (and probably you) were conceived in a place and time where our mothers were denied that voice."

Annasopra

Soros bots?

Is that the latest insult people are being paid to throw around nowadays?

rainbow kirby

EirWatchr wrote: »

But if you don't even think of those as human deaths ...

The state doesn't either - in both Ireland and the UK a birth or death cert would not be issued for a stillbirth/miscarriage before 24 weeks gestation or until a weight of 500g had been reached.

.......

This post has been deleted.

EirWatchr

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A sound interpretation by, among others in the links, the head of Marie Stopes - a for-profit abortion business. A "finding" often reiterated by the Soros-bots.

I've read the Lancet report before.

"When countries were grouped according to the grounds under which abortion was legal, we did not find evidence that abortion rates for 2010-14 were associated with the legal status of abortion."

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The report's statement does not equate with a conclusion that legalising abortion doesn't alter abortion rates. It simply means they didn't find evidence - based on studying a global average, with no analysis per region, relative poverty, availability of the contraception, relative size of demographics, or when abortion laws were introduced/changed within the timeframe, etc.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435356/abortion-media-bias-new-lancet-study-misrepresented-journalists

Of the european countries who legalized abortion, many did so a lot earlier than the 1990 start of that report and so it is practically useless as a source when discussing what happens in the immediate aftermath of legalising abortion. The study does however estimate a steady increase in abortion numbers in Western Europe from 1990 to 2014, with 21% of pregnancies there ending in abortion as of 2014. It also estimates, worldwide, 56.3 million abortions every year, and a global increase of nearly 1 million abortions every year.

But if you don't even think of those as human deaths ...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So a narrative discussing how they do not have a voice, is really a vicarious projection of one's own voice onto an entity that does not require one in the first place.

Yikes.

I (and probably you) were conceived in a place and time where someone couldn't legally deny us that voice.

seamus

applehunter wrote: »

From my perspective the more Kate O'Connell speaks on the issue the better.

She is hitting close to 10 on my thundering-bitchometer.

That's funny, because as a pro-choice voter I feel exactly the same way about Kate O'Connell.

She pisses off the religious and the pro-life side no end by just not being a quiet little lady and keeping her mouth shut. These aren't the people she's ever going to convince, but by making them more and more annoyed, she exposes just how much of their motivations like in bigotry and doctrine, not logic or ethics.

She reminds me a lot of a young Mary Robinson, but Kate has the benefit that the sneering arrogant assholes like William Binchy are no longer automatically assumed to be authorities they're male and catholic.

Kate has spoken a lot on topics that she knows since she was elected and always knocks it out of the park. But her speech last week really made me feel that there's proper Taoiseach potential in her.

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

I think she has a vibrator too, heavenly worldly goods in that house.

Bloody straight women bought them all. I could order one on-line but the customs have enough to be doing looking for illegally imported pills so someone can be threatened with 14 years in jail - I think discovering a rampant rabbit might push them over the edge.