The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

This post has been deleted.

JDD

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You all know, right, that the pill works in three ways.

1. It prevents the ovaries from issuing an egg;

2. If that doesn't work (and it sometimes doesn't), it thickens the walls at the entrance to the cervix to prevent sperm from entering;

3. If that doesn't work (and it sometimes doesn't), it smooths the walls of the cervix so that a fertilized egg can't get purchase to implant.

These three effects make the pill very effective. But I'm under no illusions that over 20 years of taking the pill, and with perhaps 320 cycles, I've probably aborted a zygote on a few occasions. The vast majority of pro-lifers don't seem to have an issue with that. Certainly, our law doesn't have an issue with it.

So, our law already allows for the termination of a zygote in certain circumstances, including as was mentioned above, in cases of IVF. So all were doing is extending that allowance to twelve weeks after fertilization, instead of only allowing it pre-implantation.

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not in law, they don't. Look up the protections a fertilized egg has during IVF - it is as taxonomically human as you are, and it has no legal rights whatsoever before implantation.

There's also no universal charters or declarations of rights either that assert a "taxonomically human" egg's right to anything.

He literally made it up.

Loafing Oaf

Edward M wrote: »

I'm voting repeal personally and hoping legislation that follows will be reasonable too.

We know with virtual certainty that the replacement legislation will permit abortion on demand/request up to 12 weeks. Up to you to decide whether that is 'reasonable'...

seamus wrote: »

There's also no universal charters or declarations of rights either that assert a "taxonomically human" egg's right to anything.

He literally made it up.

but that is the fundamental point, SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING TAXONOMICALLY HUMAN, these entities should acquire some rights (in the view of most 'pro-lifers')

better?

.....
you'd rather believe they're all women-hating, religious, control-freaks, or something...

There seems to be a lot of hatred there towards the other side, and it seems to be based on a misrepresentation of their views. Surely you cant believe that deep down they're all misogynists, and that that's the reason they hold their views?

This post has been deleted.

kylith

pleas advice wrote: »

better?

There seems to be a lot of hatred there towards the other side, and it seems to be based on a misrepresentation of their views. Surely you cant believe that deep down they're all misogynists, and that that's the reason they hold their views?

What other word could you use for someone who thinks the rights of a grown woman come second to those of a 12 Week fetus?

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

I fully accept everything you said there.
Its a very reasonable post.
The only problem with it is your first paragraph.
How to put this takes consideration, but here's how I see it.
There is a vote on repeal, now a lot of people have a problem with it because they see it as them being asked to vote for abortion.
If they think abortion is wrong, and there are a great many that do, unless in extreme circumstances, they are going to get it hard to vote for it as they think that's them endorsing it.
I'm voting repeal personally and hoping legislation that follows will be reasonable too.
A lot won't because they see it as a gateway to more radical abortion policies.
But while people are being asked to vote on something you can't say that is none of their business. They have a say in it.

People can have a say in the general rules around abortion, but once the rules and legislation are in place, the rest is a matter between a woman and her GP, just like any other medical treatment.

seamus

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's everywhere, and it's quite incredible. Even taking the fact that many platforms tend to be male-heavy anyway, I very rarely see any women holding a pro-life position and getting into heated debates about it.

Go onto twitter, and aside from the odd God-botherer putting in a throwaway comment, the ones engaging in huge pro-life threads are always men.

I'm not really willing to write it off as, "Ah, just a load of women-haters" myself. I'm genuinely curious to know what it's all about, and why women seem to be so massively underrepresented in pro-life circles.

Most of the people at the top level of the pro-choice campaigns, are women. Most of those at the top level of the pro-life campaign, are men.

Could it really be as simple as misogyny?

PhoenixParker

I am a human I have a right to life.
But if I need a kidney transplant I have no right to your kidney. If I need bone marrow I have no right to your bone marrow. If I need a simple blood donation, I have no right to your blood. My living breathing son has no right to my kidneys, bone marrow or blood either. I'd give them all to him in a heartbeat but the state wouldn't force me to.

A fetus though somehow has a right to take possession of a womans body and there's nothing she can do?

That's not an equal right to life, that's a "right" to life far far above and beyond that we give to living breathing humans of all ages.

kylith wrote: »

What other word could you use for someone who thinks the rights of a grown woman come second to those of a 12 Week fetus?

Not second, equal. (in regards a right to exist)

This post has been deleted.

kylith

pleas advice wrote: »

Not second, equal. (in regards a right to exist)

When one organism co-opts another’s body they can’t both have equal rights. Giving the fetus an inviolable right to exist means that the living woman loses her rights to bodily autonomy.

pleas advice wrote: »

better?

SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING TAXONOMICALLY HUMAN, these entities should acquire some rights (in the view of most 'pro-lifers')

So, what are you doing to ban IVF and repeal the 13th amendment?

pleas advice wrote: »

Not second, equal. (in regards a right to exist)

This is exactly what killed Savita Hallapanavar.

Even though everyone knew the fetus could not survive, until either it was dead or her life was in danger, she was denied a termination (which she requested).

By the time the medical team decided her life was in danger, they were too late.

Yes, yes, we all know the team made mistakes, but without the 8th they would not have been in the position to make mistakes. The termination would have been routine, she'd be alive and maybe had another child by now (as it was a wanted pregnancy).

pilly

seamus wrote: »

It's everywhere, and it's quite incredible. Even taking the fact that many platforms tend to be male-heavy anyway, I very rarely see any women holding a pro-life position and getting into heated debates about it.

Go onto twitter, and aside from the odd God-botherer putting in a throwaway comment, the ones engaging in huge pro-life threads are always men.

I'm not really willing to write it off as, "Ah, just a load of women-haters" myself. I'm genuinely curious to know what it's all about, and why women seem to be so massively underrepresented in pro-life circles.

Most of the people at the top level of the pro-choice campaigns, are women. Most of those at the top level of the pro-life campaign, are men.

Could it really be as simple as misogyny?

I think it's a mixture of misogyny and pure ignorance.

A man can never know what it's like to be pregnant and not want to be, it's as simple as that. No matter how much they protest, they will never ever experience that.

Another male poster has actually said it's not that big a deal to carry a child to term and give birth to it and then you can do what you want. Pure ignorance.

It's also a control issue. Some men want control over women, always have done and always will do, nothing will change them. On the plus side more and more of those type of men are dying off.

What I find more difficult to understand are the young men with these same views. Where the hell are they getting it from? Do they not have mothers or sisters?

This post has been deleted.

pilly wrote: »

What I find more difficult to understand are the young men with these same views. Where the hell are they getting it from? Do they not have mothers or sisters?

Well I mean, if you understood their actual views, and not just what you think their views are, maybe you'd see where they were coming from a little better?

pilly

pleas advice wrote: »

Well I mean, if you understood their actual views, and not just what you think their views are, maybe you'd see where they were coming from a little better?

Why don't you take your own advice and stop copy and pasting it to everyone else?

And how do you know any better what people's actual views are? You can only speak for yourself not a whole section of society.

I've named numerous reasons that I think men are anti-choice. Not just one so I'm not assuming anything.

pleas advice wrote: »

Well I mean, if you understood their actual views, and not just what you think their views are, maybe you'd see where they were coming from a little better?

... and then what?

They voted in the 8th, caused all these problems, and have resisted fixing them for 30 years. What benefit is supposed to flow from seeing where they are coming from?

I say we just vote them into the stone age where they belong.

Im sensing a little hostility here?

pleas advice wrote: »

Im sensing a little hostility here?

Yes, of course, with good reason.

B0jangles

pleas advice wrote: »

Im sensing a little hostility here?

I don't think you quite grasp that for Irish women this is not just an interesting ethical conundrum, it's quite literally a matter of life and death for some, of permanent disability or pain for others, and for the risk of those two for all Irish women.

It's easy to be calm and dispassionate about something when it poses no personal risk to you.

kylith

pleas advice wrote: »

Well I mean, if you understood their actual views, and not just what you think their views are, maybe you'd see where they were coming from a little better?

Well, what are their views then? Because ‘it’s alive! Abortion is murder’ is just an opinion and I have never been given any good reason why that opinion should be given any weight.

You ask what their views are, that's their views right there
'it's alive! Abortion is murder'

Its no more complicated than that

pleas advice wrote: »

You ask what their views are, that's their views right there
'it's alive! Abortion is murder'

Its no more complicated than that

They are wrong as a simple matter of fact.

What was the point of trying to understand this again?

To see where they are coming from, that they're not all ignorant misogynist control freaks, out to destroy young girls and women's life's for ****s and giggles...

pilly

Why are you referring to "they"? You can not speak for a whole section of society. Speak for yourself and lay off the sound bites.

You're ask people to listen to views when your views are summarised in one sentence. People don't agree. What's to understand?