Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

1…215216218220221…332

Comments

  • #6512
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    ELM327 wrote: »
    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.

    Of course I'm a pro birther, are you an anti birther?


  • #6513
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Edward M wrote: »
    Of course I'm a pro birther, are you an anti birther?
    Another strawman?
    Ok.. I'll bite and try to explain it to you.

    Pro-Birther is a counter derogatory term used for the anti-repeal group, as a retort for them using "pro-abortion" or similar. No one is truly pro abortion, just pro choice.


  • #6514
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Another strawman?
    Ok.. I'll bite and try to explain it to you.

    Pro-Birther is a counter derogatory term used for the anti-repeal group, as a retort for them using "pro-abortion" or similar. No one is truly pro abortion, just pro choice.

    Well we agree on something perhaps.:)
    But why use the derogatory term, can't you have a rational debate, I didn't use any such term to you.


  • #6515
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    ELM327 wrote: »
    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".
    Eugenics doesn't require active people and didn't just involve killing them, it included mass sterilisation as well. I support a woman choosing to have an abortion, you're basically saying eradicate possibility of something en masse.

    That's not what actually happens in Iceland, people who tend to take the test will abort. It's more a scenario that some women don't feel they're able to cope with raising a child with down syndrome etc. I support their choice and understand that it's an extraordinarily complex situation. It is not for the purpose of perfecting the human race as you appear to believe.


  • #6516
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    ELM327 wrote: »
    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".

    You must be trolling here. No pro choice people want to eradicate Downs Syndrome.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #6517
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    Eugenics doesn't require active people and didn't just involve killing them, it included mass sterilisation as well. I support a woman choosing to have an abortion, you're basically saying eradicate possibility of something en masse.

    That's not what actually happens in Iceland, people who tend to take the test will abort. It's more a scenario that some women don't feel they're able to cope with raising a child with down syndrome etc. I support their choice and understand that it's an extraordinarily complex situation. It is not for the purpose of perfecting the human race as you appear to believe.
    That's enforced .. I enforce *choice*...
    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    You must be trolling here. No pro choice people want to eradicate Downs Syndrome.
    slighltly different opinion to yours, and I must be trolling?
    Riiiiiiight.


  • #6518
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Edward M wrote: »
    Well we agree on something perhaps.:)
    But why use the derogatory term, can't you have a rational debate, I didn't use any such term to you.
    Because it's a common used term on these boards, and you will find I am not the first to use it as it is in common parlance

    There must be no straw left on the camel's back with all these straw men you are sending.


  • #6519
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    ELM327 wrote: »
    That's enforced .. I enforce *choice*...


    slighltly different opinion to yours, and I must be trolling?
    Riiiiiiight.

    Slightly different? No. You are promoting a form of genetic supremacism. Eugenics was much more than killing people.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #6520
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Slightly different? No. You are promoting a form of genetic supremacism. Eugenics was much more than killing people.
    Right.
    That's not even close to what I was saying. Way to miss the point.

    I'm convinced some people here just hear/read what they want to hear to have a ridiculous argument with someone.


  • #6521
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    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.

    You'd be a good advertisement against repeal really!


  • Advertisement
  • #6522
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Because it's a common used term on these boards, and you will find I am not the first to use it as it is in common parlance

    There must be no straw left on the camel's back with all these straw men you are sending.

    There's no need for it. Pro abortionists is commonly used too like.

    Name calling doesn't help anyone. Pro life and pro choice are the terms each movement chose for themselves, it's not hard to stick to them.


  • #6523
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Edward M wrote: »
    You'd be a good advertisement against repeal really!
    So we should not allow female bodily autonomy because you don't like something you've read online? And have failed to post one rational related non strawman counterpost? Riiight. Good one jim
    Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »
    There's no need for it. Pro abortionists is commonly used too like.

    Name calling doesn't help anyone. Pro life and pro choice are the terms each movement chose for themselves, it's not hard to stick to them.

    Whatever you want, it's the same thing. Pro life/Pro Birth/Birth Enforcers/The god squad/whatever else.
    It's people who want to deny the female population bodily autonomy.


    I'm making this one post on this thread then unsubscribing.
    To anyone thinking of voting against repeal... please please please read up on the Miss P case.

    ELM/out


  • #6524
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    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.

    If the referendum is passed, here is the most likely scenario:

    1) The Oireachtas will legislate for access to abortion. It's uncertain at this point what precisely will be in that legislation, but it won't go any further than the recommendations of the Committee. There's a chance that those recommendations won't be legislated for in full. And, as an aside, those recommendations don't include disability as a grounds for abortion so it is highly unlikely the final legislation will include it.
    2) Barring unforseen circumstances, this will remain our law for the forseeable future. Irish politicians as a group like to avoid controversy, and have a great track record in being slow to change abortion laws, eg 30 years just to legislate for the woman's right to life in the 8th.
    3) Any proposed changes will garner significant media attention. If the electorate are opposed to the change, they will make their voice heard through protests, lobbying their TDs, and all the other mechanisms open to the electorate. This won't happen behind their backs.

    There are of course other possible scenarios, but none of them would be the most likely scenario.


  • #6525
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Slightly different? No. You are promoting a form of genetic supremacism. Eugenics was much more than killing people.

    I do not get to disagree with you often as I love and agree with the majority of what you post. So I relish the chance to query you on this.

    I am not entirely sure what you mean here though so I am not sure if I am right to query it. But to test the waters, put it this way..... If I could press a button that meant no MORE people would ever be born in our species with a condition like that, I would happily press it. Would you not? IF not, I am curious why not.


  • #6526
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    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)

    of course you can its a blood test


  • #6527
    Pedro K
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭Pedro K


    Tigger wrote: »
    of course you can its a blood test

    The medical professionals seem to suggest otherwise.
    It is clear therefore that diagnosis of chromosomal abnormality, while technically possible, can rarely or realistically be achieved before twelve weeks. To suggest therefore that disability will be eliminated by enacting legislation in line with the recommendations of the Oireachtas committee is misleading.


  • #6528
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Pedro K wrote: »
    The medical professionals seem to suggest otherwise.

    thats gibberish, they are talking about screening and diagnostic as two different things if you use the diagnostic blood test

    from the article
    A second method of screening is a blood test to analyse free fetal DNA in the mother’s blood stream. This test (eg Harmony, Panorama) can be performed from nine weeks onwards. These tests cost upwards of €500 and are not funded by the State which is an obvious limiting factor for many women. If organised through the public system women still have to pay for it. There is no facility in Ireland to analyse the samples so they have to be sent to the UK or the USA for analysis. Results are generally available within two weeks. These tests are not 100 per cent reliable, and so a further, diagnostic, test must be performed to confirm or refute the diagnosis.

    at 9 weeks then you'll be able to have a final test which is 100% conclusive.
    At the moment the tests need to be sent outside the state but that would change as would the price once people realise they can easily get rid of the risk of down syndrom children. btw the blood test is highly accurate


  • #6529
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    btw i'm all for up to 16 week abortion on demand and 12 would be a start but i'd like to see it as a constitutional amendment not to leave to the government of any time to do as they want


  • #6530
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    Tigger wrote: »
    btw i'm all for up to 16 week abortion on demand and 12 would be a start but i'd like to see it as a constitutional amendment not to leave to the government of any time to do as they want

    That's a point of view many hold re the constitution, I'm glad someone else can see the problem, there are a good few out there who might vote for repeal if there was some other constitutional guarantee inserted in its place.


  • #6531
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,159 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I don't understand the obsession with having a provision in the constitution, this is a uniquely Irish mindset. We elect politicians to legislate, and it works in every other country we consider to be our peers.

    Realistically if we vote repeal no politician will want to touch this issue again for a very long time, and if they do it will be because there's a demand from the public.


  • Advertisement
  • #6532
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Tigger wrote: »
    btw i'm all for up to 16 week abortion on demand and 12 would be a start but i'd like to see it as a constitutional amendment not to leave to the government of any time to do as they want

    You probably could add an amendment like that, but you're still excluding access on the grounds of serious risk to health, FFA, etc. And trying to add exceptions like those into the constitution is asking for more trouble, because the constitution isn't the place to set rules about complex clinical, scientific, and moral issues.

    This is the Attorney General's legal advice on the 8th back in 1983:

    "The overall reason, which crops up in almost every facet of any attempted solution is that the subject matter of the amendment sough is of such complexity, involves so many matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise as to be incapable of accurate encapsulation into a simple constitution-type provision."

    That can apply to pretty much any other matter that involves "matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise".


  • #6533
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    Edward M wrote: »
    That's a point of view many hold re the constitution, I'm glad someone else can see the problem, there are a good few out there who might vote for repeal if there was some other constitutional guarantee inserted in its place.

    I and others have pointed out that such a move would be overly complex. Secondly, we elect the legislators. They represent the public. Not trusting legislators with certain things is absolutely ridiculous unless you want all future legislation in constitution?


  • #6534
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    I and others have pointed out that such a move would be overly complex. Secondly, we elect the legislators. They represent the public. Not trusting legislators with certain things is absolutely ridiculous unless you want all future legislation in constitution?

    the constitution is better for single massive issues like this that populist politicians would have to have an opinion on every time they canvassed


  • #6535
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Edward M wrote: »
    That's a point of view many hold re the constitution, I'm glad someone else can see the problem, there are a good few out there who might vote for repeal if there was some other constitutional guarantee inserted in its place.

    The 8th was supposed to be a guarantee and look how that ended up. Putting a guarantee in the constitution would just end up tying the courts and legislature in knots again and again.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #6536
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Tigger wrote: »



    at 9 weeks then you'll be able to have a final test which is 100% conclusive.
    At the moment the tests need to be sent outside the state but that would change as would the price once people realise they can easily get rid of the risk of down syndrom children. btw the blood test is highly accurate

    I'm sorry but isn't that the opposite of what that says?

    It's not 100% accurate and needs to be combined with another test to get a meaningful result, and those tests can't be carried out before 11 weeks, from my reading at that. With the limit for accessing abortion being at 12 weeks.


  • #6537
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    Tigger wrote: »
    the constitution is better for single massive issues like this that populist politicians would have to have an opinion on every time they canvassed

    What other pieces of legislation do you want to lob in the constitution? Ireland will change in the next twenty years, so another referendum in 20 years for any changed attitudes? We're getting another on divorce wording soon as well.


  • #6538
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    What other pieces of legislation do you want to lob in the constitution? Ireland will change in the next twenty years, so another referendum in 20 years for any changed attitudes? We're getting another on divorce wording soon as well.

    The constitution really should not be the place to be specific on law. In fact Josepha Madigan wants to change the 4 year divorce rule in the constitution to 2. I dont agree. Take time limits out and let legislators decide.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #6539
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    The constitution really should not be the place to be specific on law. In fact Josepha Madigan wants to change the 4 year divorce rule in the constitution to 2. I dont agree. Take time limits out and let legislators decide.

    I would concur with you on that, no idea why anyone thinks the solution is effectively be setting variables in the constitution when legislators are there to do it.


  • #6540
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »
    I'm sorry but isn't that the opposite of what that says?

    It's not 100% accurate and needs to be combined with another test to get a meaningful result, and those tests can't be carried out before 11 weeks, from my reading at that. With the limit for accessing abortion being at 12 weeks.

    The test is 9 weeks its very accurate and the second test is 100%
    The testing only takes two weeks cos there’s no dedicated lab here
    There will be soon of course


  • Advertisement
  • #6541
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    The constitution really should not be the place to be specific on law.

    A misnomer considering many of our rights are derived from the Constitution. I think the pro choice people have dropped the ball, but that is what echo chambers do.

    Most want the 8th repealed but most do not want unlimited abortion. If they put in a fail-safe into the constitution to protect the life of the unborn, they would win. The more this debate is going to drag on, the more likely it will not pass.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement