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

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.

.......

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.

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.

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

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.

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.

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.

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

.......

This post has been deleted.

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.

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

....... 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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".

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.

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.