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

Peregrinus

Consonata wrote: »

It is, but a vastly more complex clump.of cells. A fetus is very small, not very complex and (most importantly) a non sentient clump of cells. The "clump" refers in most cases to its lack of complexity.

It's pretty complex. A foetus has all the major organs, including a heart, a brain, a nervous system and a vascular system. You may be thinking of an embryo.

Consonata wrote: »

Please can we have proper arguments on this issue and not disingenuous ones on terminology like you are having right now.

Maybe you should be addressing this comment to the poster who introduced the "clump of cells" claim, and relied on it in support of their argument. Making this kind of comment to people who interrogate the "clump of cells" claim kind of gives the impression that pro-choice arguments should not be scrutinised because, you know, they might not stand up to scrutiny. That's probably not the impression you want to give.

(Though, to be honest, you'd be right to fear the results of scrutiny of this particular argument. I'm pro-choice, but that makes me all the more conscious of needs to advance good arguments in support of the pro-choice position. The "clump of cells" argument is not a good argument. The pro-choice case deserves better.)

Consonata

Peregrinus wrote:

Yes, but an adult human is also a clump of cells. If you're trying to draw a moral distinction between a foetus and a human at a later stage of development, "clump of cells" terminology is not helpful to you. Being a clump of cells isn't something that distinguishes the foetal stage from other stages of human development; rather, it's something foetuses have in common with babies, children and adults.

It is, but a vastly more complex clump.of cells. A fetus is very small, not very complex and (most importantly) a non sentient clump of cells. The "clump" refers in most cases to its lack of complexity.

Please can we have proper arguments on this issue and not disingenuous ones on terminology like you are having right now.

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

You're right I feel. The eighth is a threat to that.
Interesting though that you mention her life and health are more important, not just her choice?

Because I was addressing the specific point of the so-called equal right to life. Choice is another issue altogether.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

They could prevent that by protecting the right to life in the constitution.

We tried that and ended up constitutionally protecting abortion in some cases. And the freedom to travel for an abortion. And the freedom to access information about abortion elsewhere.

Constitutional provisions probably aren't the best approach if you're trying to prevent access to abortion.

Call me Al

Edward M wrote: »

You're right I feel. The eighth is a threat to that.
Interesting though that you mention her life and health are more important, not just her choice?

I'm not trying to be facetious when I say this but has this fact only just occurred to you now?
It's her choice to prioritise her own health and life. A woman shouldn't be demonised for doing so.

nozzferrahhtoo

Da Boss wrote: »

The life of the mother is important and must be persevered, however the unborns life is equal and must also be preserved. Everyone must acknowledge that two people exsist here, and that the unborn mustn’t be forgotten

Ah I was wondering when your next hit-and-run post of already rebutted nonsense that you entertain no discussion on was due. You left it longer than normal.

Why do you feel a non-sentient biological life form should be "equal" to a sentient woman who is actually alive and self aware and can suffer and make life choices?

Consonata wrote: »

Because thats what it is meaningfully speaking. A gingerbread man has arms and legs but it isnt cannibalism if I eat it for tea surely.

I love this.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'll counter your lazy clump of cells argument with a more reasoned one here.

Yet reason fails in that argument because he is only pretending to be discussing PRECISELY the argument I use on abortion, and wantonly misrepresenting it.

He is invoking a rather contrived version of the slippery slope / no true scotsman argument in this grammatically problematic opinion piece..... where he simply pretends that no significant changes occur in the fetus between 12 weeks, 20 weeks, 30 weeks, and that proponents of choice seem to magically only change their position when "we are confronted with a newborn"

That is NOT representative of the position he is pretending to rebut AT ALL.

He has clearly rebutted SOMEONES position here. But I am not sure who's. In fact I can think of only one person I have ever read on THIS forum for example who has espoused the position this link appears to be rebutting.......... and that person has magically changed his position recently to the very opposite extreme of actually thinking the fetus has a right to life pretty much from conception on wards.

So no, not seeing a reasoned argument in your link at all NOR am I seeing who exactly this person is meant to be arguing against either.

You link demands that "the opponents owe us a semantic story with regard to the cut-off point of the concept ‘personhood’" and that "story" is exactly what I have given in an uncountable number of posts on this forum to date. It has in fact been the core "story" of every post I make on the subject.

njs030 wrote: »

The point being made is a fetus of under 12 weeks isn't capable of the same thoughts and feelings as the woman it's dependent on.

I would go one step further and point out that the fetus under 12 weeks is not capable of ANY thoughts and feelings. Even a little bit. Let alone comparable to that of the woman.

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is kinda sorta equal under our laws now, but soon we will delete that stupid amendment and it will no longer be equal, and proper order. My wife's life and health are worth more than the life of any unborn, full stop.

You're right I feel. The eighth is a threat to that.
Interesting though that you mention her life and health are more important, not just her choice?

Zubeneschamali

Da Boss wrote: »

The life of the mother is important and must be persevered, however the unborns life is equal and must also be preserved.

It is kinda sorta equal under our laws now, but soon we will delete that stupid amendment and it will no longer be equal, and proper order. My wife's life and health are worth more than the life of any unborn, full stop.

Peregrinus

Consonata wrote: »

I don't see how it is misleading. Because that is what a fetus is. A clump of cells.

Yes, but an adult human is also a clump of cells. If you're trying to draw a moral distinction between a foetus and a human at a later stage of development, "clump of cells" terminology is not helpful to you. Being a clump of cells isn't something that distinguishes the foetal stage from other stages of human development; rather, it's something foetuses have in common with babies, children and adults.

Consonata

ForestFire wrote:

Just call it a fetus, and leave out the clump. Say you don't believe it is human at this stage, lots of correct ways to make your opinion known.

I don't see how it is misleading. Because that is what a fetus is. A clump of cells.

thee glitz

njs030 wrote: »

In Iran where the abortion law changes depending on who is in power.

They could prevent that by protecting the right to life in the constitution.

ForestFire

njs030 wrote: »

Every living thing is a bundle of cells why do you argue this point with every poster. Surely you know by know what they mean.
Dogs, birds, trees, flowers... Everything is made up of cells!

The point being made is a fetus of under 12 weeks isn't capable of the same thoughts and feelings as the woman it's dependent on.

Its deliberitly used to downplay the development state of the fetus.

Clump

a compacted mass or lump of something.

Just call it a fetus, and leave out the clump. Say you don't believe it is human at this stage, lots of correct ways to make your opinion known.

njs030

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'll counter your lazy clump of cells argument with a more reasoned one here.

From the University of Tehran? In Iran where the abortion law changes depending on who is in power.
Written by a professor of philosophy 9 years ago.

Tbh I'll continue to take my medical advice from a medical doctor.

njs030

ForestFire wrote: »

Its not emotions it is a fact.

You are trying to turn it into emotions to stop people talking about it.

Your all for science when it suits you.

This is mearly a scientific fact.

Why call it a clump of cells in the first place when it's misleading?

Every living thing is a bundle of cells why do you argue this point with every poster. Surely you know by now what they mean.
Dogs, birds, trees, flowers... Everything is made up of cells!

The point being made is a fetus of under 12 weeks isn't capable of the same thoughts and feelings as the woman it's dependent on.

ForestFire

Consonata wrote: »

Because thats what it is meaningfully speaking. A gingerbread man has arms and legs but it isnt cannibalism if I eat it for tea surely.

You do know a gingerbread person does not actualy have arms and legs?

And I only asked for it to be described properly. You can discuss it's relevance from that point on all you want as per the same post.

thee glitz

Consonata wrote: »

This nonsense about the foetus having arms and legs brings needless emotion to an already emotive debate

Wait a minute... these are fake arms!

jimmycrackcorm

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Firstly, the unborn fetus isn't life at 12 weeks, I've explained this before. Your feelings don't factor into scientific fact. Secondly, no, one person exists and sustains what is a growing clump of cells that may or may not eventually become a person.

I'll counter your lazy clump of cells argument with a more reasoned one here.

Consonata

ForestFire wrote:

Why call it a clump of cells in the first place when it's misleading?

Because thats what it is meaningfully speaking. A gingerbread man has arms and legs but it isnt cannibalism if I eat it for tea surely.

ForestFire

Consonata wrote: »

I mean a footprint doesn't look like a boot.

It may look like a fully functioning human albeit miniscule, but that doesnt mean it has functioning brain faculties, or even is remotely sentient. This nonsense about the foetus having arms and legs brings needless emotion to an already emotive debate

Its not emotions it is a fact.

You are trying to turn it into emotions to stop people talking about it.

Your all for science when it suits you.

This is mearly a scientific fact.

Why call it a clump of cells in the first place when it's misleading?

Consonata

ForestFire wrote:

I think you'll find at 12 weeks the fetus is far from a clump of cells. Arms, legs, fingers toes, eyes and functioning organs.

ForestFire wrote:

Whether you consider if life or human is another thing, but let's describe it properly.

I mean a footprint doesn't look like a boot.

It may look like a fully functioning human albeit miniscule, but that doesnt mean it has functioning brain faculties, or even is remotely sentient. This nonsense about the foetus having arms and legs brings needless emotion to an already emotive debate

ForestFire

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Firstly, the unborn fetus isn't life at 12 weeks, I've explained this before. Your feelings don't factor into scientific fact. Secondly, no, one person exists and sustains what is a growing clump of cells that may or may not eventually become a person.

I think you'll find at 12 weeks the fetus is far from a clump of cells. Arms, legs, fingers toes, eyes and functioning organs.

Whether you consider if life or human is another thing, but let's describe it properly.

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Read them. Then come back on it because you will be actually informed rather than guesswork.

Any part in particular?

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Read them. Then come back on it because you will be actually informed rather than guesswork.

Any part in particular?

markodaly

Akrasia wrote: »

This whole 'I have a baby now therefore abortion is wrong' is a stupid argument,

Yes, we should only listen to the people we argee with.

Keep talking, as the more you do, the more people like you will drive other people to vote No.

mrkiscool2

Da Boss wrote: »

The life of the mother is important and must be persevered, however the unborns life is equal and must also be preserved. Everyone must acknowledge that two people exsist here, and that the unborn mustn’t be forgotten

Firstly, the unborn fetus isn't life at 12 weeks, I've explained this before. Your feelings don't factor into scientific fact. Secondly, no, one person exists and sustains what is a growing clump of cells that may or may not eventually become a person.

markodaly

January wrote: »

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/773908732912730112

'I'm not saying I would have done it'

She didn't even try to organise an abortion in England.

That actually doesn't mention anything about England, whether she did try or did not try and plan an abortion. What she does say is that easy access to abortion would make it much more tempting for people to avail of one, especially at the early stages when there could be panic.

So, yea no proof of lies here, just people projecting a bias against a poster.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

Not very much, but I'm going to go with because it was easier and/or more appealing to do so?

Read them. Then come back on it because you will be actually informed rather than guesswork.

Da Boss

The life of the mother is important and must be persevered, however the unborns life is equal and must also be preserved. Everyone must acknowledge that two people exsist here, and that the unborn mustn’t be forgotten

NuMarvel

ForestFire wrote: »

Maybe it was something that was hard for her to say at the time, even if she only thought about it herself and told nobody, and even harder now, as she has a toddler beside her.

It doesn't appear harder for her now, what with her appearances in the media and being a literal posterchild on anti-repeal posters. Which by the way is the only reason we're talking about her in the first place.

ForestFire wrote: »

Do you know many women going around talking about their kids and how they contemplated abortion.

I've seen a number of women, with and without children, talking about why they chose to have an abortion. Here's the most recent example. Click the date stamp to see the follow thread on Twitter.

ForestFire wrote: »

We may never know what her exact thoughts at the time. There may be some truth in it or not.

We know what she's saying now and what she said then. There is nothing in what she said then that even suggests that "the time it took to plan an abortion in England" is why she didn't have an abortion, which is what she's saying now.

ForestFire wrote: »

But do you believe this choice or deilema has been faced by other women?

The particular discussion isn't about the decisions women make in these situations. It's about a person giving contradictory versions of her experiences, with the aim of restricting the choices available to women in these situations.

She had a crisis pregnancy, and she chose to continue with it. She certainly seems happy with her choice, and I'm happy that the law facilitated her choice. What I would like to see the law facilitating girls and women who make other choices.

Spanish Eyes

Pro Life now want access to the Supreme Court in the case involving a deportation order. OMG.

Sure the judges know nothing without help.