The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

The Legend Of Kira · 04-02-2018 03:35AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

It hasn,t come up in conversation as of yet, friend is what I call " apathetic " when it comes to anything to do with politics never voted yet .

I'd be curious about that. I know children of single parents were disgusted at being used against marriage equality. I know a friend of mine with a child who has downs is disgusted by these posters.

Every family or parents of someone who has down syndrome or has a family member/relative with a disability with all take a different view on the useage of the new billboard posters.

For example the O Dowd family appear happy to lend their support to the newly formed group ( Disability voices for life )

https://www.facebook.com/disabilityvoicesforlife/videos/211989529367440/

Everyone will Interpret the billboards message in their own way, the " 90% " abortion rate the billboard is quoting , I Interpret they re trying to tell the electorate [font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]the cold uncomfortable truth about how abortion impacts on a vulnerable section of society in another country.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Even if they didn,t change the billboard posters on their vans, known repeal campaigners took issue & offence with the previous billboard poster which had a young mother on the poster, who also gave their permission for their image to be used .[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]

[/font]

Annasopra · 04-02-2018 07:54AM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

To be honest with you it all depends on the families and their beliefs!

I'm not so sure. I think only the extreme pro lifers are ok with them. The family I was talking about dont have strong views either way on the abortion debate but have strong views against this advertising.

Annasopra · 04-02-2018 08:02AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Every family or parents of someone who has down syndrome or has a family member/relative with a disability with all take a different view on the useage of the new billboard posters.

What about adults with DS themselves? Are you not even considering their views?

Annasopra · 04-02-2018 08:05AM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

To be honest with you it all depends on the families and their beliefs!

I didnt ask about families. I asked about his friend. People with DS can and do have their own views on things.

baylah17 · 04-02-2018 08:13AM

It is significant in how the anti repeal side work that even this thread has now been derailed and become a thread about DS
This is a debate about women's health and the right to choose.

freshpopcorn · 04-02-2018 08:14AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I'm not so sure. I think only the extreme pro lifers are ok with them. The family I was talking about dont have strong views either way on the abortion debate but have strong views against this advertising.

I'll be honest I only know two families who'd be in a situation like this and one would be all repeal and the other would be keep. ie one would have repeal on facebook and the other would have something similar to this.
When I say I know them they are just people from the area/write blogs/etc.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I didnt ask about families. I asked about his friend by the way. People with DS can and do have their own views on things.

I wrote that wrong to be honest. What I meant was the families I've experienced all seem to have the same views through the generations ie child with down syndrome has same view as their parents.

Annasopra · 04-02-2018 08:39AM

Children and adults with DS are capable of having their own independent thoughts and opinions. I think its interesting this is not considered. Even by legend of kira.

Edward M · 04-02-2018 08:48AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Children and adults with DS are capable of having their own independent thoughts and opinions. I think its interesting this is not considered. Even by legend of kira.

I know that adult DS sufferers have a vote, they are one of the exceptions at a ballot box, they can be accompanied by a parent or guardian when voting. Perhaps their vote will mirror the views of the parent or guardian. More than likely I would say, as most are open to suggestive thought.

ELM327 · 04-02-2018 09:26AM

baylah17 wrote: »

It is significant in how the anti repeal side work that even this thread has now been derailed and become a thread about DS
This is a debate about women's health and the right to choose.

Completely.
It is a red herring from the pro birthers... considering medically you (in 99% of cases) cannot detect DS before 12 weeks.

Guess they must be running out of logical arguments (seeing as there are none, other than emotive fear and wish to control others)

Ash.J.Williams · 04-02-2018 09:35AM

a "love both" article appeared on my Facebook feed by proxy last night, about an abortion survivor who now leads a happy life,,,,

only thing is she wasn't actually aborted, her granny tried to murder her at 8 months, so entirely misleading

Edward M · 04-02-2018 09:50AM

ELM327 wrote: »

Completely.
It is a red herring from the pro birthers... considering medically you (in 99% of cases) cannot detect DS before 12 weeks.

Guess they must be running out of logical arguments (seeing as there are none, other than emotive fear and wish to control others)

Alls fair in love and war. I can see the point in the argument even if its disagreed with.
Once abortion is liberalised and allowed to be legislated for by the oireachtas then exemptions to time limits can and may be pushed for by interested groups for all kinds of defects discovered before birth.
DS is just one, but others will emerge I'm sure.
Once it becomes legislative law then any group can lobby their TDs and govt for change.
If the repeal is passed as is proposed, then the foetus at no age will have constitutional protection.

optogirl · 04-02-2018 10:11AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Children and adults with DS are capable of having their own independent thoughts and opinions. I think its interesting this is not considered. Even by legend of kira.

I also wonder at the people who believe a, for example, 12 year old girl with DS or severe disability who gets pregnant must be forced to carry that child to term.

ELM327 · 04-02-2018 10:17AM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

a "love both" article appeared on my Facebook feed by proxy last night, about an abortion survivor who now leads a happy life,,,,

only thing is she wasn't actually aborted, her granny tried to murder her at 8 months, so entirely misleading

I have not seen one logical argument from the pro birth side. Is there one?

Edward M wrote: »

Alls fair in love and war. I can see the point in the argument even if its disagreed with.

Like the NHS claims in Brexit? No harm lying to people once you get the result you want eh?

I'm happy to be on the side of logical rationality.

Edward M wrote: »

Once abortion is liberalised and allowed to be legislated for by the oireachtas then exemptions to time limits can and may be pushed for by interested groups for all kinds of defects discovered before birth.
DS is just one, but others will emerge I'm sure.
Once it becomes legislative law then any group can lobby their TDs and govt for change.

I (and I may be alone in this viewpoint) would not view the eradication of many syndromes as a bad thing. I'd prefer no child than to be lumbered with providing care for the rest of my life. I don't subscribe to the catholic guilt view that "every child is a blessing". In the real world, children are hard work and a disabled child is harder again.

Edward M wrote: »

If the repeal is passed as is proposed, then the foetus at no age will have constitutional protection.

False. They will still have constitutional protection, just not the ridiculous situation that we have now.. where an amoeba is given the same protection (in effect, more, due to fear amongst doctors) as a woman.

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2018 10:54AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/disabilityvoicesforlife/videos/211989529367440/

An Honest poster would say

In the time it took you to Vote No a woman travelled to England.

Edward M · 04-02-2018 11:38AM

ELM327 wrote: »

I have not seen one logical argument from the pro birth side. Is there one?

Like the NHS claims in Brexit? No harm lying to people once you get the result you want eh?

I'm happy to be on the side of logical rationality.

I (and I may be alone in this viewpoint) would not view the eradication of many syndromes as a bad thing. I'd prefer no child than to be lumbered with providing care for the rest of my life. I don't subscribe to the catholic guilt view that "every child is a blessing". In the real world, children are hard work and a disabled child is harder again.

False. They will still have constitutional protection, just not the ridiculous situation that we have now.. where an amoeba is given the same protection (in effect, more, due to fear amongst doctors) as a woman.

I'm not sure what clause in the constitution, after the eighth is repealed, would stop a future govt giving extension to the twelve week limit.
Bear in mind now, I have decided to vote for repeal, but there are many people out there, who like me, think if repeal is passed, that its up to govt to legislate for abortion.
Perhaps to ease my mind and others too, you could point out the section of the constitution that would stop future or present govt from inserting a law extending the time limit for abortion in certain or all cases?

ELM327 · 04-02-2018 11:45AM

Edward M wrote: »

I'm not sure what clause in the constitution, after the eighth is repealed, would stop a future govt giving extension to the twelve week limit.
Bear in mind now, I have decided to vote for repeal, but there are many people out there, who like me, think if repeal is passed, that its up to govt to legislate for abortion.
Perhaps to ease my mind and others too, you could point out the section of the constitution that would stop future or present govt from inserting a law extending the time limit for abortion in certain or all cases?

Since it has not been decided whether it will be a "repeal simpliciter" (repeal and no replacement)... or a repeal and replace with a term limit (or even amend the 8th as has been done previously with the 13&14 amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland)... or a repeal and replace with a statement allowing the oireachtas to legislate... it is impossible to know.

In my opinion the constitution is not the place for this "morality based law" anyway. It is not there in any other western country, except for this religious backwoods swamp.

I will be voting repeal, and would prefer a repeal and replace with a statement allowing the oireachtas to legislate. Ideally this proposed legislation would be in place prior to the vote.

The 8th is a terrible piece of legislation, it was terrible in 1983 and it's worse now as it's killing our women. When you look at Mary Robinson's interview from 1983 about the 8th it shows how ridiculous it was.

Edward M · 04-02-2018 11:48AM

ELM327 wrote: »

Since it has not been decided whether it will be a "repeal simpliciter" (repeal and no replacement)... or a repeal and replace with a term limit (or even amend the 8th as has been done previously with the 13&14 amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland)... or a repeal and replace with a statement allowing the oireachtas to legislate... it is impossible to know.

In my opinion the constitution is not the place for this "morality based law" anyway. It is not there in any other western country, except for this religious backwoods swamp.

I will be voting repeal, and would prefer a repeal and replace with a statement allowing the oireachtas to legislate. Ideally this proposed legislation would be in place prior to the vote.

The 8th is a terrible piece of legislation, it was terrible in 1983 and it's worse now as it's killing our women. When you look at Mary Robinson's interview from 1983 about the 8th it shows how ridiculous it was.

So your assertion that my previous statement was false was maybe wrong?

Sofiztikated · 04-02-2018 11:49AM

Edward M wrote: »

I'm not sure what clause in the constitution, after the eighth is repealed, would stop a future govt giving extension to the twelve week limit.
Bear in mind now, I have decided to vote for repeal, but there are many people out there, who like me, think if repeal is passed, that its up to govt to legislate for abortion.
Perhaps to ease my mind and others too, you could point out the section of the constitution that would stop future or present govt from inserting a law extending the time limit for abortion in certain or all cases?

Nothing.

That's what this whole thing is about. Removing it from the Constitution, and letting the Government of the day legislate for it.

Seriously. It's not about boats. It's not about Downs Syndrome, or any other condition. It's not about baby parts and blenders.

It's about removing an ill thought out amendment.

pitifulgod · 04-02-2018 11:50AM

Edward M wrote: »

I'm not sure what clause in the constitution, after the eighth is repealed, would stop a future govt giving extension to the twelve week limit.
Bear in mind now, I have decided to vote for repeal, but there are many people out there, who like me, think if repeal is passed, that its up to govt to legislate for abortion.
Perhaps to ease my mind and others too, you could point out the section of the constitution that would stop future or present govt from inserting a law extending the time limit for abortion in certain or all cases?

And issues like abortion shouldn't have law enshrined in the constitution. It's a terrible solution. Should we move all future legislation that people find uncomfortable into the constitution? The people we elect are there to legislate, the constitution is not where it should be put.

Another similarly ridiculous example is the aspects of divorce we have enshrined in the constitution. The five year separation rule was literally put there to push the referendum through. We now have to have yet another referendum to remove it. We should not treat the constitution like a word document.

ELM327 · 04-02-2018 11:51AM

Edward M wrote: »

So your assertion that my previous statement was false was maybe wrong?

Your statement was false as you made an absolute statement that cannot be known at this time.

In terms of absolute.. your statement

Edward M wrote:

If the repeal is passed as is proposed, then the foetus at no age will have constitutional protection.

cannot be true at this time as you nor I know what the method of repeal will be... and as such logically if a statement cannot be true it is false. At best... it is a schrodinger's cat. At best.

Annasopra · 04-02-2018 12:01PM

Edward M wrote: »

I know that adult DS sufferers have a vote, they are one of the exceptions at a ballot box, they can be accompanied by a parent or guardian when voting. Perhaps their vote will mirror the views of the parent or guardian. More than likely I would say, as most are open to suggestive thought.

Sufferers?
Ah here. They are people with Downs Syndrome. Not bloody sufferers.

Its very odd. Peoole are saying we shouldnt eradicate downs syndrome. On the other hand the langugage being used about people with down syndrome is dehumanising and archaic.

Let me repeat what I said earlier. People with Downs Syndrome can have their own thoughts and opinions.

Edward M · 04-02-2018 12:07PM

ELM327 wrote: »

Your statement was false as you made an absolute statement that cannot be known at this time.

In terms of absolute.. your statement

cannot be true at this time as you nor I know what the method of repeal will be... and as such logically if a statement cannot be true it is false. At best... it is a schrodinger's cat. At best.

But I didn't say at this time.
If you are going to accuse others of falseties then perhaps you shouldn't pick portions of a statement to Cherry pick.
I assume that what will happen after repeal is passed there is no new article to be inserted into the constitution, that is what we are being told.
That we will be given the alternative to allow govt to legislate after repeal and that will give any govt thereafter the right to impose changes in limits and reasons for it.
If you're going to inform voters of the truth then you should tell the truth, if the other side lies then call them out on it with truth, not other lies or at least falseties.

ELM327 · 04-02-2018 12:09PM

Edward M wrote: »

But I didn't say at this time.
If you are going to accuse others of falseties then perhaps you shouldn't pick portions of a statement to Cherry pick.
I assume that what will happen after repeal is passed there is no new article to be inserted into the constitution, that is what we are being told.
That we will be given the alternative to allow govt to legislate after repeal and that will give any govt thereafter the right to impose changes in limits and reasons for it.
If you're going to inform voters of the truth then you should tell the truth, if the other side lies then call them out on it with truth, not other lies or at least falseties.

hmmm... can you see the issues here?

Edward M · 04-02-2018 12:10PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Sufferers?
Ah here. They are people with Downs Syndrome. Not bloody sufferers.

Its very odd. Peoole are saying we shouldnt eradicate downs syndrome. On the other hand the langugage being used about people with down syndrome is dehumanising and archaic.

Let me repeat what I said earlier. People with Downs Syndrome can have their own thoughts and opinions.

My apologies, definitely wrong wording.

ELM327 · 04-02-2018 12:10PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Sufferers?
Ah here. They are people with Downs Syndrome. Not bloody sufferers.

Its very odd. Peoole are saying we shouldnt eradicate downs syndrome. On the other hand the langugage being used about people with down syndrome is dehumanising and archaic.

Let me repeat what I said earlier. People with Downs Syndrome can have their own thoughts and opinions.

I've said the opposite.
We should eradicate disorders if possible. No one is talking about euthanasia or anything, but preventing the creation of the life in the first place.

Edward M · 04-02-2018 12:16PM

ELM327 wrote: »

hmmm... can you see the issues here?

Ah look, that's what we are being told now.
My argument as yours is based on current information.
Why not tell people the most likely scenario.
You called my statement, or at least the portion you highlighted secondly, though that wasn't the full sentence so it took the statement as a whole out of context, false.
You haven't provided any evidence it is false or indeed will later be false.
All the evidence points to it being true, in fact you even said you wanted it to be true in different words in one of your posts.

ELM327 · 04-02-2018 12:22PM

Edward M wrote: »

Ah look, that's what we are being told now.
My argument as yours is based on current information.
Why not tell people the most likely scenario.
You called my statement, or at least the portion you highlighted secondly, though that wasn't the full sentence so it took the statement as a whole out of context, false.
You haven't provided any evidence it is false or indeed will later be false.
All the evidence points to it being true, in fact you even said you wanted it to be true in different words in one of your posts.

How, Can, You, Know, It, Is, True, When, The, Wording, Has, Not, Been, Set, Yet.....

Research Schrodinger's cat and you will see why that covers your post.
Are you sure you're not a pro birther? Your militant refusal to acknowledge rationality seems to suggest you are.

Annasopra · 04-02-2018 12:28PM

ELM327 wrote: »

I've said the opposite.
We should eradicate disorders if possible. No one is talking about euthanasia or anything, but preventing the creation of the life in the first place.

I wasnt referring to you. And sorry but no. Eradication of disorders has been tried already with Eugenics. We should accept that human beings are different!

ELM327 · 04-02-2018 12:31PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I wasnt referring to you. And sorry but no. Eradication of disorders has been tried already with Eugenics. We should accept that human beings are different!

Different yes... disorder no.

Eugenics involves killing of active people, the icelandic method involves prevention. Big difference.

PS: This is a discussion forum, if you don't want a reply from random posters I'd suggest sending a PM to whomever it was that you were "referring to".

Edward M · 04-02-2018 12:32PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Sufferers?
Ah here. They are people with Downs Syndrome. Not bloody sufferers.

Its very odd. Peoole are saying we shouldnt eradicate downs syndrome. On the other hand the langugage being used about people with down syndrome is dehumanising and archaic.

Let me repeat what I said earlier. People with Downs Syndrome can have their own thoughts and opinions.

Just back on this, DS is classed as a disability, it has many different levels, but at best it is an intellectual disability, calling someone with the condition a sufferer is acceptable in certain contexts, though I do regret using that term.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments