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

.......

This post has been deleted.

kylith

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure what 'official' means in that context, but abortions have been happening for decades - and long before 1983 - for life-threatening medical indications, most commonly ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies were managed in broadly the same way before and after 1983.

No, the 8th was supposed to a permanent constitutional protection against any future Government legalising abortion in non-life threatening situations. We/I may be splitting hairs here, but it is important just to reflect that abortions have been a feature of medical practice for decades.

Life threatening, yes, but not health threatening. This means that women can be denied medical treatment until they are progressed enough that their illness is killing them.

Take a look at one of the women in your life. Would you be ok with telling her that if she were diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy you would deny her treatment until it becomes terminal?

drkpower

Per Candamir above, you are misunderstanding the foetal heartbeat issue - it's presence as a contraindication has nothing to do with the 8th - that same contrainidication exists for methotrexate in the UK, USA, everywhere; foetal heartbeat as a contraindication is a proxy/indicator of foetal size (which in turn impacts on whether medical management is advisable). At the end of the day, whether chemical or surgical, the intention was to terminate, so i am surprised at the link being made with the T case and the 8th.

There has also never been absolute permission in the same cases. They apparently skirted a convenient line where things went OK so long as nobody raised any heckles about it and nobody decided to see if they could prosecute a doctor.

My point being, ultimately, that the Eighth forced the state, for the first time, to explicitly legalise abortion. Even though it had been sold as a safeguard against it

Part of your confusion as to the legal position is probably caused by the unweidly nature of irish (and english) law so its understandable; the following is just a quick legal history but should have explain the position:
- 1861 Act - makes it illegal to 'procure a miscarriage'
- 1939: R. v Bourne: This case interpreted the 1861 Act and clearly said that a doctor would not be acting unlawfully if he carried out an abortion in good faith for the purpose of preserving the life of the woman.

While Bourne was an English case, it was interpreting the same 1861 Act, so it was widely accepted both medically and legally that abortion in those circumstances in Ireland was perfectly legal. And medical and legal practice followed that legal reality for 40 years +. Now one might argue that this wasn't very clear at all, and how can we be clear when all we have are court judgments that can always be overturned, but believe it or not, as Irish law goes (especially in the 1930s - 1980s when the volume of statute law was tiny by today's standards), this was actually crystal clear. Even today many areas of 'well settled' clear law are based on case law alone.

So, from 1939, abortion was clearly legal in life threatening scenarios. You might say that in certain cases there was confusion as to what 'life threatening' meant, and i would agree with you. You might say that that law was not explicit, but I would disagree with you. By the standards of irish law, the position was quite explicit and medics and lawyers acted accordingly.

If anything, and this is just an aside, Bourne raised concerns that what we actually had post 1939 was an incredibly liberal abortion regime. That was because the judgment said a doctor wouldnt be guilty if “he was of the opinion on reasonable grounds that the probable consequence of the continuance of the pregnancy would be to make the woman a physical or mental wreck”.

seamus

drkpower wrote: »

Seamus, you are surely not claiming that ectopic pregnancies weren't treated before 1983, or before X, or before POLPA are you? I mean, really?

No, of course not. But like you say there appears to have been and still is significant confusion over what is permitted, even in scenarios where there is functionally zero chance of foetal survival.

I think the Thawley case is actually a perfect example - the hospital apparently refused to allow the use of an abortifactant because a foetal heartbeat existed, even though there was zero chance the foetus could ever survive. If abortion was legal to save her life, then why was that not an option?

It was not an option, because the purpose of the abortifactant is to kill the foetus.

However, the purpose of the surgical intervention is to save the mother's life - the death of the foetus is incidental.

That's the difference - the abortion is functionally illegal, but an operation which incidentally kills the foetus; just like a hysterectomy or a high dose of chemotherapy would; is technically legal.

Now, there's still a question of why the POLDPA wasn't invoked in the Thawley case, but I suspect it boils down to the minutiae of what constitutes a risk to life.

But the key point is that there is not, and never has been, an absolute prohibition on abortion in cases where there is a clear risk to life.

There has also never been absolute permission in the same cases. They apparently skirted a convenient line where things went OK so long as nobody raised any heckles about it and nobody decided to see if they could prosecute a doctor.

My point being, ultimately, that the Eighth forced the state, for the first time, to explicitly legalise abortion. Even though it had been sold as a safeguard against it.

drkpower

Seamus, you are surely not claiming that ectopic pregnancies weren't treated before 1983, or before X, or before POLPA are you? I mean, really?

Don't get me wrong, the 8th (probably more so 'X') raised unacceptable confusion in some cases as to where the line was between risk to life (which is, and always has been, legal) and no risk to life. Savita being a case in point. But the key point is that there is not, and never has been, an absolute prohibition on abortion in cases where there is a clear risk to life.

Im not sure Thawley is relevant in the context of what we are discussing.

Candamir

seamus wrote: »

"Official" means recorded, standard medical practice.

I went looking (albeit not for hours) and could find no indication that abortion was standard medical practice in Ireland unless the embryo or foetus had no detectable heartbeat.

And if abortion was standard medical practice when there was a risk to the life of the mother, what happened to Savita? Why was Malak Thawley refused chemical intervention and told surgical was the only option?

Happy to be corrected though.

Rhona Mahony is on the record confirming abortions have always been carried out in life threathening cases. I don’t have a link, and I can’t remember the numbers offhand, but I remember being surprised it was so high (maybe low double digit territory). She was speaking around the time of the Halapanaveer case iirc.
As for that case, without getting into it, the reason for the delay was ascertaining the degree of risk - when it became ‘life threathing enough’. An utterly intolerable way to have to practice medicine.
As for the Thawley case, none of us have the medical details, they weren’t argued in court, so we don’t know why, but it was likely because it was contraindicated. She died from a complication of her surgery. It’s a stretch to attribute her death to the 8th IMO.

Edit to add: The notion of the ‘foetal heartbeat’ in the treatment of of ectopics is being misrepresented I think. The presence or absence of a heartbeat isn’t used to ascertain wether the foetus is alive, more as an indicator of suitable treatments options wrt the a stage of the pregnancy I believe.

seamus

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure what 'official' means in that context, but abortions have been happening for decades - and long before 1983 - for life-threatening medical indications, most commonly ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies were managed in broadly the same way before and after 1983.

"Official" means recorded, standard medical practice.

I went looking (albeit not for hours) and could find no indication that abortion was standard medical practice in Ireland unless the embryo or foetus had no detectable heartbeat.

And if abortion was standard medical practice when there was a risk to the life of the mother, what happened to Savita? Why was Malak Thawley refused chemical intervention and told surgical was the only option?

Happy to be corrected though.

drkpower

Im not sure what 'official' means in that context, but abortions have been happening for decades - and long before 1983 - for life-threatening medical indications, most commonly ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies were managed in broadly the same way before and after 1983.

The 8th was supposed to a permanent constitutional protection against any future Government legalising abortion.

No, the 8th was supposed to a permanent constitutional protection against any future Government legalising abortion in non-life threatening situations. We/I may be splitting hairs here, but it is important just to reflect that abortions have been a feature of medical practice for decades.

seamus

drkpower wrote: »

Before 1983, and after 1983, before the X case, and after the X case, abortions were being carried out in Ireland perfectly legally for many medical indications (for ectopics being the classical example).

Were they? I can't find any data that suggests there were any "official" legal abortions between 1983 and 2013, and even serious or fatal complications have not been grounds for termination so long as a heartbeat existed. Savita being the most high-profile example, but there was another in 2016:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/cascade-of-negligence-led-to-pregnant-woman-s-death-1.3353142

Counsel said Mr Thawley googled ectopic pregnancy and saw it could be treated with certain medicine but was told, because the foetal sac had a heartbeat, the only option was surgical intervention and the couple felt they should follow the advice.

What the 8th (and the X case's interpretation) did was to legalise suicidality as a ground for abortion. Which is, eh, ironic to say the least! But irony aside, even now, and even post POLPA, i'm not even sure if an abortion has actually occurred under the suicidality ground (though may be wrong on that).

Suicide and risk to life.
There are about 3 abortions carried out per year on the suicide ground, and 20-odd due to the mother's life being at risk otherwise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Life_During_Pregnancy_Act_2013#Implementation

So it might be a little misleading to suggest that the 8th did the complete opposite of what was intended.

Not misleading at all. The 8th was supposed to a permanent constitutional protection against any future Government legalising abortion. Not only did it fail to do that, it actually created a grey area under which abortion had to be made legal in order to satisfy the 8th amendment.

The irony is that if the 8th had never been enacted, we could still have an absolute, 100%, legal ban on abortion. The 8th prevents that from happening.

drkpower

seamus wrote: »

The Eighth Amendment forced the Irish State to legalise abortion for the first time in its history.

I'm not a fan of the 8th (far bloody from it!) but lets not overstate it.

Before 1983, and after 1983, before the X case, and after the X case, abortions were being carried out in Ireland perfectly legally for many medical indications (for ectopics being the classical example).

What the 8th (and the X case's interpretation) did was to legalise suicidality as a ground for abortion. Which is, eh, ironic to say the least! But irony aside, even now, and even post POLPA, i'm not even sure if an abortion has actually occurred under the suicidality ground (though may be wrong on that).

So it might be a little misleading to suggest that the 8th did the complete opposite of what was intended.

Intothesea

seamus wrote: »

No, this is not to do with allowing travel overseas. That required another amendment whereby the public "modified" this value statement to clarify that it didn't want to jail women who would try travel for an abortion.

The Eighth Amendment forced the Government in 2013 to make abortion legal in Ireland under certain circumstances. The Government had no choice - the Supreme Court had ruled (20 years previously) that this amendment implicitly required that abortion be legal in those circumstances.

It was presented to the public in 1983 as a permanent barrier to abortion ever becoming legal in Ireland. In actuality it copperfastened into the constitution an obligation on the state to permit it. Repealing the 8th would lift this obligation.

With all due respect, if you're this far out of the loop on the discussion, I would suggest that you go off and do some reading before coming back.

Discussing abortion and the philosophising around that is one thing, but the 8th Amendment is a specific piece of law with 30 years of history and controversy behind it that you can't just ignore and hand-wave with vague descriptions like "value statement".

Okay, thanks for that, Seamus. I will look into it, though I can already see the repeal is ripe for activation, and have to wonder how short-sighted the government at the time was. I guess they took it as the less politically dangerous option and falsely hoped that tomorrow would never come.

Anyway, my input here was supposed to give some voice to what I believe are typical angles for people concerned about optional abortion up to a certain limit, regardless of the need to repeal the 8th. It's a mixed bone of contention, so please excuse my apparent intrusion on the matter of the 8th repeal.

Zubeneschamali

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I reckon the reason people arbitrarily pick implantation over conception though is probably so they do not fall foul of having to argue against MAP and the like.

They used to always say "Life begins at conception". The whole implantation thing came out of the judgement in the X-case, and the prolife lobby seized on it because, as you say, they don't want to argue with IVF and morning after pills.

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

No, this is not to do with allowing travel overseas. That required another amendment whereby the public "modified" this value statement to clarify that it didn't want to jail women who would try travel for an abortion.

The Eighth Amendment forced the Government in 2013 to make abortion legal in Ireland under certain circumstances. The Government had no choice - the Supreme Court had ruled (20 years previously) that this amendment implicitly required that abortion be legal in those circumstances.

It was presented to the public in 1983 as a permanent barrier to abortion ever becoming legal in Ireland. In actuality it copperfastened into the constitution an obligation on the state to permit it. Repealing the 8th would lift this obligation.

With all due respect, if you're this far out of the loop on the discussion, I would suggest that you go off and do some reading before coming back.

Discussing abortion and the philosophising around that is one thing, but the 8th Amendment is a specific piece of law with 30 years of history and controversy behind it that you can't just ignore and hand-wave with vague descriptions like "value statement".

or "spirit of the endeavor", whatever that nonsense is supposed to mean.

seamus

Intothesea wrote: »

Now, I'm not privy to exactly what is the case, apart from guessing that the not-total ban meant people legged it to England to get abortions. My contention is that the wording was left that open specifically to declare a 'spirit of the endeavour". Which would mean our politicians did their best to uphold a certain idealism while acknowledging reality.

Anyway, I might be talking through my hat here, but that's what I think you meant.

No, this is not to do with allowing travel overseas. That required another amendment whereby the public "modified" this value statement to clarify that it didn't want to jail women who would try travel for an abortion.

The Eighth Amendment forced the Government in 2013 to make abortion legal in Ireland under certain circumstances. The Government had no choice - the Supreme Court had ruled (20 years previously) that this amendment implicitly required that abortion be legal in those circumstances.

It was presented to the public in 1983 as a permanent barrier to abortion ever becoming legal in Ireland. In actuality it copperfastened into the constitution an obligation on the state to permit it. Repealing the 8th would lift this obligation.

With all due respect, if you're this far out of the loop on the discussion, I would suggest that you go off and do some reading before coming back.

Discussing abortion and the philosophising around that is one thing, but the 8th Amendment is a specific piece of law with 30 years of history and controversy behind it that you can't just ignore and hand-wave with vague descriptions like "value statement".

Intothesea

seamus wrote: »

Did you read my post?

Even if 100% of the Irish people in 1983 supported this "value statement", it ended up having the exact opposite effect and forced abortion to be legalised.

It would be like having a constitutional ban on the death penalty, which due to awful wording forced the state to introduce the death penalty.

And bizarrely then the most vocal opponents to the death penalty are the same ones fighting tooth and nail to protect the only thing making it legal.

Sorry Seamus, it's late here. I was referring to:

The Eighth Amendment forced the Irish State to legalise abortion for the first time in its history. What was intended to be an iron-clad ban, a "value statement", if you want, about Ireland's abhorrence of abortion, had the exact opposite effect that was intended.

Now, I'm not privy to exactly what is the case, apart from guessing that the not-total ban meant people legged it to England to get abortions. My contention is that the wording was left that open specifically to declare a 'spirit of the endeavour". Which would mean our politicians did their best to uphold a certain idealism while acknowledging reality.

Anyway, I might be talking through my hat here, but that's what I think you meant.

nozzferrahhtoo

Intothesea wrote: »

Yes, I'm not sure what I make of this, though it's not much of a stretch to say anything that interferes with a fertilized egg' progress is an act of willful destruction.

You might want to take issue with our meat industry then which causes the willful destruction of life. And the paper industry.... poor trees. So willful and contrived. And farming with their insecticides. And medical professionals with their antibiotics.

No, it seems humans are in the process of "willful destruction" of life every day. Life that often undergoes conception and implantation of it's own during it's own life cycle.

So when one wants to single out something specific, like a human fetus, for special protection from ongoing willful destruction I think they require a basis for doing so. I have adumbrated mine, and how and when it applies. I am not really seeing anything but counter assertion to it.

Intothesea wrote: »

Gawd, for such an apparently intelligent guy you can sure pretend to be logically disadvantaged. And it's obvious you're not, so I'll leave it there.

Yet I have engaged in no such pretense, nor have you shown and logical flaws in anything I have said. So perhaps the pretense is on your side, not mine? In that you are pretending I have done things I literally and demonstrably have not done.

But the chance to test Nozz Law 1 twice in a row is doubley welcome.

Intothesea

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Pointless comments about your eyes aside, it is not clear what you think you are trying to say here.

An entity either has rights or it doesn't. And if it does there has to be SOME point in the process SOMEWHERE where it gets them.

Now one can choose to arbitrarily pick a point in that process, and shout out words like "implantation", or one can at least try and sit down and coherently make a case for a point in the process.

And no "implantation" is not the absolute start point. Conception is. But just shouting out "implantation" or "conception" is not making a case for why that should be the point chosen. Nor does the "starting point" of the process get us there either. I reckon the reason people arbitrarily pick implantation over conception though is probably so they do not fall foul of having to argue against MAP and the like. But both seem equally arbitrary to me.

Disorientation might be apart of the explanation for the poor points I guess. But certainly I do love another chance to test out "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of forum posting" which states that "the probability of a user making another post on a conversation goes UP in proportion to the number of times they have claimed to be leaving it".

Gawd, for such an apparently intelligent guy you can sure pretend to be logically disadvantaged. And it's obvious you're not, so I'll leave it there.

seamus

Intothesea wrote: »

It's a value statement that was left in place for however long, and presumably it's a forgone conclusion that not everyone will abide by a value appearing as an emergent property from a bunch of people. If the majority of people opposed it, why did it end up in the constitution in any format, let alone the one used?

Did you read my post?

Even if 100% of the Irish people in 1983 supported this "value statement", it ended up having the exact opposite effect and forced abortion to be legalised.

It would be like having a constitutional ban on the death penalty, which due to awful wording forced the state to introduce the death penalty.

And bizarrely then the most vocal opponents to the death penalty are the same ones fighting tooth and nail to protect the only thing making it legal.

Intothesea

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, I'm not sure what I make of this, though it's not much of a stretch to say anything that interferes with a fertilized egg' progress is an act of willful destruction. That would be an innate arbitrary line in the sand for me, maybe. But it doesn't mean it passes logical muster, for the idea in consideration.

nozzferrahhtoo

Intothesea wrote: »

Any criteria applied to determining the right of a fetus to life is moot and irrelevant when the act of creation and implantation is the absolute start condition of a process that progresses according to time, an unalterable factor.

Pointless comments about your eyes aside, it is not clear what you think you are trying to say here.

An entity either has rights or it doesn't. And if it does there has to be SOME point in the process SOMEWHERE where it gets them.

Now one can choose to arbitrarily pick a point in that process, and shout out words like "implantation", or one can at least try and sit down and coherently make a case for a point in the process.

And no "implantation" is not the absolute start point. Conception is. But just shouting out "implantation" or "conception" is not making a case for why that should be the point chosen. Nor does the "starting point" of the process get us there either. I reckon the reason people arbitrarily pick implantation over conception though is probably so they do not fall foul of having to argue against MAP and the like. But both seem equally arbitrary to me.

Intothesea wrote: »

Must get off this merry-go-round now, getting dizzy

Disorientation might be apart of the explanation for the poor points I guess. But certainly I do love another chance to test out "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of forum posting" which states that "the probability of a user making another post on a conversation goes UP in proportion to the number of times they have claimed to be leaving it".

Intothesea

seamus wrote: »

Even as a "value statement" though, it has failed miserably.

The Eighth Amendment forced the Irish State to legalise abortion for the first time in its history. What was intended to be an iron-clad ban, a "value statement", if you want, about Ireland's abhorrence of abortion, had the exact opposite effect that was intended.

Anyone who is pro-life and has the slightest shred of consistency and dignity in what they believe, would recognise that the eighth must be repealed in order to bring about full criminalisation of abortion and restore the "value statement" that was first mooted in the 1980s.

To fight against repeal while claiming to be pro-life is speaking out of both sides of one's mouth. The 8th amendment is an affront to both pro-life and pro-choice points of view.

That in itself is quite a feat, and illustrates just how poorly and hastily crafted the amendment was.

It's a value statement that was left in place for however long, and presumably it's a forgone conclusion that not everyone will abide by a value appearing as an emergent property from a bunch of people. If the majority of people opposed it, why did it end up in the constitution in any format, let alone the one used?

Anyway, I'm not voting or campaigning for any side of this issue, I'm not in Ireland. I'm merely giving voice to the kind of convictions that will naturally act against the tide of support specifically for abortion up to 12 or 16 weeks.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Intothesea

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No call or reason other than the reason I offered? I am sure I just explained one. Saying there is "no reason" does not magically make my reasons disappear.

But while ignoring my reasons, you appear to be arguing a point that is entirely against your own position now. If there is "no call or reason" to apply a right "anywhere in that process" at all........ then on what basis are you against abortion? You have just argued that there is no reason to apply a right to the process.... therefore abortion should not be a problem. At any stage in that process, let alone early stages.

At least my position recognizes the rights of sentient entities, which the fetus does become during the fetal process. And as such there is a coherent basis to afford it rights at that time. Including the right to life.

/Eyes to higher altitudes, if not heaven

Any criteria applied to determining the right of a fetus to life is moot and irrelevant when the act of creation and implantation is the absolute start condition of a process that progresses according to time, an unalterable factor.

Must get off this merry-go-round now, getting dizzy

seamus

Intothesea wrote: »

this rule defines the spirit of the endeavour. It's a value statement, or it has been.

Even as a "value statement" though, it has failed miserably.

The Eighth Amendment forced the Irish State to legalise abortion for the first time in its history. What was intended to be an iron-clad ban, a "value statement", if you want, about Ireland's abhorrence of abortion, had the exact opposite effect that was intended.

Anyone who is pro-life and has the slightest shred of consistency and dignity in what they believe, would recognise that the eighth must be repealed in order to bring about full criminalisation of abortion and restore the "value statement" that was first mooted in the 1980s.

To fight against repeal while claiming to be pro-life is speaking out of both sides of one's mouth. The 8th amendment is an affront to both pro-life and pro-choice points of view.

That in itself is quite a feat, and illustrates just how poorly and hastily crafted the amendment was.

nozzferrahhtoo

No call or reason other than the reason I offered? I am sure I just explained one. Saying there is "no reason" does not magically make my reasons disappear.

But while ignoring my reasons, you appear to be arguing a point that is entirely against your own position now. If there is "no call or reason" to apply a right "anywhere in that process" at all........ then on what basis are you against abortion? You have just argued that there is no reason to apply a right to the process.... therefore abortion should not be a problem. At any stage in that process, let alone early stages.

At least my position recognizes the rights of sentient entities, which the fetus does become during the fetal process. And as such there is a coherent basis to afford it rights at that time. Including the right to life.

Intothesea

Sorry Nozz, if a kid is incumbent from the moment of implantation, with time as the only factor determining the outcome, there is no call or reason to 'apply' a fundamental right anywhere in that process. If it can be applied anywhere, it's before implantation. And even that's questionable.

There's one last point I'd like to put forward here, that relates to the argument that women are heading to England to put an end to their pregnancies, and its apparent illogicality.

You have to apply a bit of Irish logic to this one. The inherent statement in this ban that extends only as far as our shores is: this rule defines the spirit of the endeavour. It's a value statement, or it has been.

nozzferrahhtoo

Intothesea wrote: »

our human ability to grant value and rights to other living things.

And we do that a lot. And interestingly we do it pretty much in line with what I wrote above..... which is based on sentience and consciousness.

The thought experiment (in the absence of the ethical possibility to actually test it) is to ask people what they would save from a burning building assuming they can and must save one. A spider or a cat.

Not only does everyone say cat in my experience, they will still say THE cat in the face of 10,000 spiders.

You can then modify the question, to account for arachnophobia, to any two other animals. A bird or a dog. A monkey or a pig. A dolphin or a Pollock. And so on. And what you find is that invariably when there is a distinct difference in the quality and level of sentience between the species.... people save the higher one every time. Even saving the higher one over several 1000 instances of the lower.

We seem therefore to mediate moral and ethical concern for others on the basis of consciousness and sentience. And moral and ethical concern appears to be in the business of mediating the actions and well being OF conscious and sentient agents.

That the fetus at 16weeks and before ENTIRELY lacks said faculty therefore seems to render incoherent any attempt to make it an entity of moral and ethical concern.

Intothesea

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not applying this to cases where unusual/medically disastrous factors are at play, which I'm assuming it obvious anyway.

And really, you don't spot a connection between the state of the place during the boom, after the crash, and the government's sudden capability to even field this concept?

Have a look at the neo-liberal deal. One of the tenets is free-for all personal freedoms in exchange for selling your working soul to the international winds of the world market

Intothesea

Ah, SMH. Folks, I wanted to delineate a common thread of value for philosophically arriving at a solid conclusion for how to view abortion, and a kid's right to life. "From whence it comes" is according to this simple logical view-point. Rough-hew it as you may :pac:

Should we have rights, does anyone have a right, what are rights? Well, I'm sure that our existence and how it is lived right down to whether we exist or not, or how much freedom we have, or whether we can thrive or not, comes down to our human ability to grant value and rights to other living things. Without that ability, we are psychopathic -- or a politician.

Okay, over and out.

.......

This post has been deleted.