The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

ELM327 · 31-01-2018 04:36PM

RobertKK wrote: »

There are many women against abortion.
A survey by Newstalk with a polling company found more men were prochoice than women.

Your post is tacking the person and not the topic at hand which shows you have a weak argument if you can’t argue the topic.

Women against abortion?
Fine... then don't have one!

kylith · 31-01-2018 04:36PM

RobertKK wrote: »

So if a baby that is born is dependent on the mother and has no one else to look after it, infanticide would be ok as it directly impacts the mother’s life and her choices?

No. A baby can be taken care of by anybody with a mind to. There is literally no way that a fetus can be taken from a womb and implanted into another womb to gestate.

RobertKK · 31-01-2018 04:39PM

joeyanne wrote: »

NO again. If a baby is born, then it is a living, breathing human being. But at, and before, 12 weeks, it is not a baby. It is a fetus. How can you really believe a fetus can have the same rights as a woman?

The woman’s life comes first but a blatant disregard for the life she carries does give a view into the psyche of that woman or man who supports taking that life away. There is a lack of empathy with the other life if there is nothing wrong and you terminate his/her life in the womb.
He/she in the womb is growing and showing he/she wants to live as there are two lives involved.

The Legend Of Kira · 31-01-2018 04:42PM

Home to vote is slowly starting to trend I see.

https://twitter.com/LdnIrishARC/status/958470809781260290

There was a thread a few months ago on Irish abroad coming home to vote for the upcoming referendum.

https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057794664

As one poster said on that thread.

"" If you aren’t resident in Ireland, then legally you cannot vote. ""

If this is actually accurate ,, what l be done to ensure that those who vote are legally allowed vote ?

baylah17 · 31-01-2018 04:43PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The woman’s life comes first but a blatant disregard for the life she carries does give a view into the psyche of that woman or man who supports taking that life away. There is a lack of empathy with the other life if there is nothing wrong and you terminate his/her life in the womb.
He/she in the womb is growing and showing he/she wants to live as there are two lives involved.

There is no greater lack of empathy in this debate than from those who would compel under force of law a woman to carry a fetus against her will.
The right to regulate her own body is a basic civil right for every woman, the right not to be forced into motherhood against her will.

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-01-2018 04:44PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The woman’s life comes first but a blatant disregard for the life she carries does give a view into the psyche of that woman or man who supports taking that life away.

Yea, it gives you the insight that without sentience they have NO REASON to value that life any more than you valued the life of the last steak you ate, or the last bacteria you killed by the MILLIONS when you last took an anti-biotic.

And you can take a look into my psyche for free with that too, because I ENTIRELY agree with them on that assessment. There is no reason on offer, least of all by you, as to why we should value a 12 week old fetus in that way at all.

RobertKK wrote: »

There is a lack of empathy with the other life if there is nothing wrong and you terminate his/her life in the womb.

Perhaps a dictionary would benefit you at this point. Empathy: "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.". The Fetus HAS no feelings. There is no sentient entity there to have any. Do you empathize with amoeba too?

What you are doing is not empathizing. It is projecting your feelings onto the fetus.

RobertKK wrote: »

He/she in the womb is growing and showing he/she wants to live as there are two lives involved.

It does not "want" anything any more than an amoeba moving towards a food source "wants" to eat or a plant stretching towards the sun "wants" to photosynthesize. There is nothing there doing the wanting. YOU are wanting vicariously on it's behalf.

kylith · 31-01-2018 04:44PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would think that any perceived increase is just from previously illegal terminations now being recorded.

For example, say 500* women managed to have legal terminations last year. Assuming that 4500* went to the UK for a termination last year, if the same numbers continue next year the rate of legal Irish abortions would skyrocket from 500pa to 5000pa. No more Irish women would actually be getting terminations, they'd just be having them in Ireland and recording them in Irish statistics.

*All numbers purely for the sake of argument

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 31-01-2018 04:44PM

A 12 week foetus doesn't "want" anything. No more than if you held an apple in your grip, extended your arm and released your grip the apple "wants" to fall, or mold on a damp wall "wants" to grow.

RobertKK · 31-01-2018 04:45PM

kylith wrote: »

No. A baby can be taken care of by anybody with a mind to. There is literally no way that a fetus can be taken from a womb and implanted into another womb to gestate.

What if the mother doesn’t want her baby to be cared by someone else and want her/him dead?
We have seen mothers commit infanticide. That is illegal but the argument is the baby has the same understanding as the unborn baby in the womb has.
The only difference is you can see one and the other is hidden in a body of a woman.

....... · 31-01-2018 04:45PM

This post has been deleted.

swampgas · 31-01-2018 04:47PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The woman’s life comes first but a blatant disregard for the life she carries does give a view into the psyche of that woman or man who supports taking that life away. There is a lack of empathy with the other life if there is nothing wrong and you terminate his/her life in the womb.
He/she in the womb is growing and showing he/she wants to live as there are two lives involved.

What seems to be the case is that people opposed to abortion have lots of empathy for a potential life, but less for the pregnant woman. Those in favour of allowing a woman to choose have more empathy for the woman than for the foetus.

What's interesting is how those with traditional views of women tend to have less empathy for them and are less inclined to give them autonomy. Women had to fight for the vote, for employment equality, for many things that traditionalists don't like. They want to decide for women, rather than let women decide for themselves.

What is so bad about letting women decide, Robert? Why is it so important to you that you get to tell them what to do? Can you not see the problem with assuming that you know better than they do?

....... · 31-01-2018 04:49PM

This post has been deleted.

kylith · 31-01-2018 04:50PM

RobertKK wrote: »

What if the mother doesn’t want her baby to be cared by someone else and want her/him dead?
We have seen mothers commit infanticide. That is illegal but the argument is the baby has the same understanding as the unborn baby in the womb has.
The only difference is you can see one and the other is hidden in a body of a woman.

How about you give over with the 'what ifs'?

The two are not comparable and you know it.

joeyanne · 31-01-2018 04:51PM

RobertKK wrote: »

What if the mother doesn’t want her baby to be cared by someone else and want her/him dead?
We have seen mothers commit infanticide. That is illegal but the argument is the baby has the same understanding as the unborn baby in the womb has.
The only difference is you can see one and the other is hidden in a body of a woman.

If the mother doesn't want someone else to care for her baby, then would it not be better if she was allowed to terminate her pregnancy in the first 12 weeks?
PLEASE explain how the fetus has the same understanding as a baby. I'm interested in your logic on this.

....... · 31-01-2018 04:51PM

This post has been deleted.

Riskymove · 31-01-2018 04:52PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The only difference is you can see one and the other is hidden in a body of a woman.

if someone was to harm a pregnant woman resulting in the loss of the foetus ...would the person be charged with murder?

RobertKK · 31-01-2018 04:55PM

....... wrote: »

Why do you think women who seek abortions have a blatant disregard for the life they carry?

Do you not think it is a measure of last resort for a woman? A difficult decision?

I dont know how a fetus is showing it wants to live. Life is not that special, we are surrounded by it here on Earth, everything rudely and enthusiastically multiplies , we are surrounded by life. One single life in a womb is really of zilch importance in the scheme of things.

In the end if for let’s say ‘oh a baby will get in the way of my studies’ and she has an abortion. It shows a selfishness.

How do you know if an an abortion has zilch importance in the scheme of things?
How do you know who is being not allowed to be born? It could be a very cruel person but it could also be a person who would have made life better for everyone because of they would have been a genius. No one knows what they are potentially depriving the world of when they intentionally abort.
As I said it could be someone the world is better off without, but it could also be someone who revolutionises something whether in health, travel, work, inventions we don’t know as they were never given a chance in the lottery of life.

frag420 · 31-01-2018 04:56PM

So the pro birth side say that a fetus has equal rights to the mother!

Say a woman is having triplets and one of the triplets is causing issues for the other two triplets.

If you abort the bad triplet then there is the potential that all the triplets die but the mother lives?

There is also the potential that you could save three lives at the cost of one life!

If you do nothing there is the possibility they all die!?

What would you choose in this instance considering you believe they are all equal!?

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-01-2018 04:57PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yea we hosted a debate in London on the Marriage Referendum. Voters came to it for a ticket price. The ticket price included watching the debate between the for and against camps, and the bus and ferry ticket (there was a number of buses) to bring them on the day trip home to Ireland.

They were not questioned about their eligibility to vote but of course it came up in many over heard conversations on the trip. I did not get the impression from any conversation I over heard, or heard reported to me, that anyone on the buses was under any impression they were not voting legally. They were either "normally resident" in Ireland on a given cut off day, had not been out of Ireland for a given length of time, or had intentions to return to Ireland within a given time and so forth.

Perhaps some were, but I saw nothing suggesting it. I think the "illegal voters" are a small number and are just used as a crutch by the losing side to help them get over their loss. And the buses, I might add, were not restricted to just yes voters. There was no voters there too, and the debates continued in a friendly and mature fashion the entire way over on the bus and boat. So those who do moan that illegal voters came, forget that illegal voters vote BOTH ways.

Purple Mountain · 31-01-2018 04:58PM

I'm late to this thread so apologies if this has been addressed.
I'm not pedalling either side here but has anyone outlined funding for abortion services if it's legalised?
Will it be through the HSE or private clinics?
Will it be covered by medical card/health insurance?
Also, from my understanding it would be a pill induced abortion and not surgical.
If a lady is say 12 weeks pregnant I'm assuming that's a more substantial miscarriage than a 3 week miscarriage and would they need to be under supervision and not sent home to pass the foetus?

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-01-2018 04:58PM

RobertKK wrote: »

In the end if for let’s say ‘oh a baby will get in the way of my studies’ and she has an abortion. It shows a selfishness.

I do not think it does. But even if we magically pretend you are right and it does.... so what. We do not legislate for selfishness nor should we.

RobertKK · 31-01-2018 05:00PM

Riskymove wrote: »

if someone was to harm a pregnant woman resulting in the loss of the foetus ...would the person be charged with murder?

Surely the choice should come down to the choice of the pregnant woman into how she felt about what happened and if the unborn was murdered.

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-01-2018 05:01PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Surely the choice should come down to the choice of the pregnant woman into how she felt about what happened and if the unborn was murdered.

You want laws that are based on peoples FEELINGS? So if someone feels something was a murder, it should be a murder? And if they don't it should not?

Wow. I seriously hope you have no actual input into law.

swampgas · 31-01-2018 05:01PM

RobertKK wrote: »

In the end if for let’s say ‘oh a baby will get in the way of my studies’ and she has an abortion. It shows a selfishness.

How do you know if an an abortion has zilch importance in the scheme of things?
How do you know who is being not allowed to be born? It could be a very cruel person but it could also be a person who would have made life better for everyone because of they would have been a genius. No one knows what they are potentially depriving the world of when they intentionally abort.
As I said it could be someone the world is better off without, but it could also be someone who revolutionises something whether in health, travel, work, inventions we don’t know as they were never given a chance in the lottery of life.

So you want to dictate to women what their priorities should be too? And tell them when they're being selfish or not?

As for the whole "potential genius that might never be born" angle, you might as well try to add something to the constitution that mandates having 10 kids per family. It's a bogus argument.

frag420 · 31-01-2018 05:02PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Surely the choice should come down to the choice of the pregnant woman into how she felt about what happened and if the unborn was murdered.

Glad to see we are finally getting somewhere with you...keep it up!!

Riskymove · 31-01-2018 05:02PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Surely the choice should come down to the choice of the pregnant woman into how she felt about what happened and if the unborn was murdered.

thats some sidestep

the answer is no...a person would not be charged with murder regardless of what people wanted...as a foetus being killed is not seen as the same by the law as killing a child

RobertKK · 31-01-2018 05:04PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yea we hosted a debate in London on the Marriage Referendum. Voters came to it for a ticket price. The ticket price included watching the debate between the for and against camps, and the bus and ferry ticket (there was a number of buses) to bring them on the day trip home to Ireland.

They were not questioned about their eligibility to vote but of course it came up in many over heard conversations on the trip. I did not get the impression from any conversation I over heard, or heard reported to me, that anyone on the buses was under any impression they were not voting legally. They were either "normally resident" in Ireland on a given cut off day, had not been out of Ireland for a given length of time, or had intentions to return to Ireland within a given time and so forth.

Perhaps some were, but I saw nothing suggesting it. I think the "illegal voters" are a small number and are just used as a crutch by the losing side to help them get over their loss. And the buses, I might add, were not restricted to just yes voters. There was no voters there too, and the debates continued in a friendly and mature fashion the entire way over on the bus and boat. So those who do moan that illegal voters came, forget that illegal voters vote BOTH ways.

I don’t care what side they are in.
I value democracy and I always vote and do so legally.
Our country is based on the rule of laws and whether one is for or against any referendum it is wrong to vote when you are breaking the law to do so, democracy is not based on illegal voting. That is what corrupt countries do.

Zubeneschamali · 31-01-2018 05:11PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The poll that was released was released at the weekend discussed here and people showed polls of the marriage referendum. Most polls in the marriage referendum were well into the 60% or even 70%. So seeing a poll just in the mid 50% would have me worried.

The poll you are talking about was 56% Yes, 29% No and 15% Don't Know, that's a very comprehensive lead for Yes.

If the Don't Knows stay home or split the same was as the general population, you get a 65/35 win for Yes. If the Don't Knows split down the middle you get a 63.5/36.5 win. Either of those is a bigger win than the SSM vote.

Even if the Don't Knows all vote and all vote No, you still get a 56/44 win.

(usual Ts&Cs apply to polling - it's a long way til voting day)

kylith · 31-01-2018 05:18PM

RobertKK wrote: »

In the end if for let’s say ‘oh a baby will get in the way of my studies’ and she has an abortion. It shows a selfishness.

What a selfish bitch! How very dare a teenaged girl think about her studies and how they could better her position in life!? She should absolutely be forced to give up on college and any dreams she had for a career and a good life. :rolleyes:

Even if it could be called selfishness, would you want someone so selfish to have sole charge of a child?

kylith · 31-01-2018 05:21PM

swampgas wrote: »

As for the whole "potential genius that might never be born" angle, you might as well try to add something to the constitution that mandates having 10 kids per family. It's a bogus argument.

Or that for every potential genius there's a potential serial killer.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments