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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

astrofool

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

To be fair, it's not developmentally complex enough to exist by itself, unlike a born baby, or a carrot plant.

MrPudding

Water John wrote: »

does that mean if the Judges refuse their involvement, that they may seek to use that as evidence of a State bias?

Meh. Separation of powers.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

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

Sure the judges know nothing without help.

There is a long history in the courts of amicus briefs and friends of the court. This is pretty common, and is to be found in all kinds of cases.

Judges do tend to be fairly bright individuals, and whilst they will carry out a considerable amount of research themselves, they do, to varying degrees, rely on experts, or interested parties, in a particular field to fill out their knowledge, or to identify other avenues for their own research.

I would not expect a judge to base their judgment in a particular matter on an amicus brief, but it would not be unusual, and I have no issue, with them using such briefs to inform their opinion and their research.

I know this is a different jurisdiction, but here is a list of the amicus briefs filed in support of the people trying to overturn Proposition 8 in the US. There were a similar number against, mostly from religious organisations. This is not an uncommon thing. I would not be particularly worried if they managed to get themselves attached to this case, anything they said or submitted would be carefully assessed, and not simply taken a given.

MrP

Zerbini Blewitt

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

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

Looking at his piece not from the viewpoint of a supposed rebuttal to the pro-choice position but in what it is saying in support of the pro-life argument.

He is saying a 4 weeks embryo is a human being (I note he steers clear of starting at the zygote stage) because neither proponents nor opponents of abortion can tell a convincing semantic story of when the 4 weeks embryo changes to become the baby human being (and person) in the delivery room. In other words, because there is no clearly defined time boundary of when personhood is attained we must therefore call a 4 weeks embryo a human being.

Sorry but this is just plainly illogical & weak.

Besides the actual arguments presented by different prochoice people, including those on this site, which deal with the {definite no person hood possible stage, followed by an interval time period when personhood is attained, followed by definite personhood attained stage} … …
his wafer thin ‘three card trickery’ word play really isn’t something I’d be basing the foundation for a pro-life definition of a human being on.

It’s almost as if the writer has never had a back and forth with an established pro-choice ethicist or any real world pro-choice person in his entire life. I don’t see how else he could construct this argument.

In fact, it is riddled throughout with misrepresentations of the pro-choice side. He could have represented the pro-choice side fairly but he chose not to. This says a lot about his credibility.
Also, that he even mentioned ensoulment at all tells its own story.

Unless there is any better reasoning than this effort, it is clear that as before, a zygote, a 4 week embryo or early stage foetus are not human beings.

Mr. CooL ICE

A PANEL OF three judges have ruled against the Pro Life Campaign’s application to become a legal adviser in a Supreme Court case on defining “the unborn” in the Constitution.

The panel of judges also questioned the impact the groups involvement would have in the context of the upcoming Eighth Amendment referendum, and asked why they had waited until the last minute to lodge the application to become an amicus, when when the appeal was lodged in the summer of 2016.

I'm guessing the bolded bit is ammo to claim they are being silenced

.......

This post has been deleted.

Water John

Well they did put forward, William Binchy as an expert. Not that he got it right in 1983.

Ave Sodalis

Iona are starting to pay for Facebook adverts now. I seen a post about facts from the UK about DS and abortion come up on my homepage... I've reported it to FB about being misleading but I doubt it'll do much good.

Ash.J.Williams

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.

That's interesting... Your wifes life is more important than the life of the unborn IN YOUR OPINION. there is an argument to say it isn't.... And i say that from a pro choice angle

mrkiscool2

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

That's interesting... Your wifes life is more important than the life of the unborn IN YOUR OPINION. there is an argument to say it isn't.... And i say that from a pro choice angle

Sorry, there is no argument here, at all. If the mother's life is at risk due to her pregnancy an abortion should be performed immediately. There is no debate here. Risking her life for the sake of a fetus is not acceptable, especially when the trauma the woman is going through could kill the fetus anyway.

Edward M

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

That's interesting... Your wifes life is more important than the life of the unborn IN YOUR OPINION. there is an argument to say it isn't.... And i say that from a pro choice angle

I don't know for sure, but I think Zubens post was just a personal point.
Like it'd be easy to argue his wording, I could easily say I don't think his wifes health is worth more than my unborn.
I assume he meant to him, if he had a choice, he'd pick his wife every time.
If I had that choice to make, I'd pick my wife too.
The eighth amendment would mean neither I or my wife would have that choice.
I think that's just not right.

Captain Obvious

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Sorry, there is no argument here, at all. If the mother's life is at risk due to her pregnancy an abortion should be performed immediately. There is no debate here. Risking her life for the sake of a fetus is not acceptable, especially when the trauma the woman is going through could kill the fetus anyway.

Shouldn't it be the mothers choice whether to give her life for the fetus?

mrkiscool2

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Shouldn't it be the mothers choice whether to give her life for the fetus?

Unless the doctor says "Childbirth may kill you, but you can still choose to go through with the delivery" then I can't really see a choice. If something is wrong with the pregnancy that puts the mother's life in danger, the likelihood of even the fetus surviving is extremely slim.

baylah17

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/up-to-40000-irish-people-living-abroad-are-eligible-to-vote-in-abortion-referendum-36580809.html
40,000 Irish abroad eligible to vote.
These are the votes that may potentially make the difference.
They are in my opinion more likely to be young, enlightened voters more given to repeal than retain.

Captain Obvious

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Unless the doctor says "Childbirth may kill you, but you can still choose to go through with the delivery" then I can't really see a choice. If something is wrong with the pregnancy that puts the mother's life in danger, the likelihood of even the fetus surviving is extremely slim.

So you wouldn't be pro choice then.

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

I don't know for sure, but I think Zubens post was just a personal point.
Like it'd be easy to argue his wording, I could easily say I don't think his wifes health is worth more than my unborn.
I assume he meant to him, if he had a choice, he'd pick his wife every time.
If I had that choice to make, I'd pick my wife too.
The eighth amendment would mean neither I or my wife would have that choice.
I think that's just not right.

I think this is one of the most honest statements I have read.

If, as next of kin, it is a case of the woman or the fetus... how many of us in all honesty would say save the fetus?

I wouldn't.

mrkiscool2

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So you wouldn't be pro choice then.

If your definition of "pro-choice" is bad medical practice then sure, I'm not pro-choice :rolleyes:

Captain Obvious

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

If your definition of "pro-choice" is bad medical practice then sure, I'm not pro-choice :rolleyes:

No my definition would be giving the choice to the mother, even if she makes one you think is bad.

suicide_circus

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No my definition would be giving the choice to the mother, even if she makes one you think is bad.

Mother? That would imply there's a child involved

Captain Obvious

suicide_circus wrote: »

Mother? That would imply there's a child involved

Whatever floats your boat.