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

Zubeneschamali

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I have read it. I have no issue with Stage 1 (repeal); my issue is with what replaces it

In that case, your comment would be better phrased as "I am not contending that an unborn child’s right to life is equal to that of an adult woman", because in case it is news to you, hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland ARE contending exactly that.

Zubeneschamali

Andrew Beef wrote: »

But nobody is contending that an unborn child’s right to life is equal to that of an adult woman;

Then you'd better repeal the 8th, because that's exactly what it contends.

splinter65

circadian wrote: »

So I got some Save the 8th literature in the door over the weekend.

There is a lot of misinformation and comparisons that don't really make sense.

Do they just expect people to not check the sources they use?

"In Denmark there is a goal to make it a Down Syndrome free country by 2030"

http://cphpost.dk/news/down-syndrome-heading-for-extinction-in-denmark.html

Nowhere in that article does it mention "a goal" to do this.

The leaflet was littered with things like this.

Tell us some more misinformation and inaccurate comparisons that you read in the leaflet.
It’s Iceland as far as I can see that’s aiming for the “no imperfections please” scenario.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/iceland-downs-syndrome-no-children-born-first-country-world-screening-a7895996.html?amp

[Deleted User]

So I got some Save the 8th literature in the door over the weekend.

There is a lot of misinformation and comparisons that don't really make sense.

Do they just expect people to not check the sources they use?

"In Denmark there is a goal to make it a Down Syndrome free country by 2030"

http://cphpost.dk/news/down-syndrome-heading-for-extinction-in-denmark.html

Nowhere in that article does it mention "a goal" to do this.

The leaflet was littered with things like this.

Candamir

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yes it can. If a child stumbles on a cliff edge and is hanging over the edge, the state requires you to pull him up before he falls. You can't just sit back and continue eating your ice cream while he's screaming for your help.

They are called "Duty To Rescue" laws. You can't claim bodily autonomy and just do nothing.

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue )

In countries with duty to rescue laws (and I believe Ireland is not one of them), the duty to rescue does not apply if it potentially puts the rescuer or others in danger. Given that carrying a pregnancy is more dangerous than terminating one, duty to rescue does not apply here. Even in your poor analogy.

pitifulgod

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I have read it. I have no issue with Stage 1 (repeal); my issue is with what replaces it (12 weeks etc).

You want to convict women for abortions, you would be considered to be on the extreme side of things...

Andrew Beef

NuMarvel wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

But nobody is contending that an unborn child’s right to life is equal to that of an adult woman...

That's exactly what the 8th says:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right

If you're going to oppose repeal of the 8th, you should at least read it first.

I have read it. I have no issue with Stage 1 (repeal); my issue is with what replaces it (12 weeks etc).

swampgas

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yes it can. If a child stumbles on a cliff edge and is hanging over the edge, the state requires you to pull him up before he falls. You can't just sit back and continue eating your ice cream while he's screaming for your help.

They are called "Duty To Rescue" laws. You can't claim bodily autonomy and just do nothing.

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue )

It feels like you're working through a list of "arguments to use when debating abortionists" but what the hell.

Here's an alternative (and IMO more accurate) hypothetical for you.

You see a child of about 14 years of age standing on a cliff edge, crying. You approach and ask what the problem is. She says she was raped by her father and is pregnant, and can't face being pregnant, so she's going to jump. You offer to help and explain all the reasons why she should go ahead with the pregnancy. None of your arguments make any sense to her. She asks if you would lend her the money to buy some abortion pills, as she is only 6 weeks pregnant. You refuse. She says never mind, she has just remembered someone she can ask for money instead. As she heads away you decide that you must act on behalf of the 6-week old life, so you abduct her and lock her in a bedroom in your home. She refuses to eat so you force feed her. She doesn't understand why you are treating her in such an awful way, but then she doesn't understand that LIFE must prevail, no matter the consequences. 6 weeks later she miscarries, as you knew she might. You now release her, she goes straight to the Gárdaí, and you are arrested. You protest your moral superiority.

Sound about right? Is this the moral framework you have signed up to?

This is the moral framework of the 8th amendment. It allows strangers to insist that a girl or woman be forced to continue a pregnancy no matter the circumstances. Own it.

NuMarvel

Andrew Beef wrote: »

But nobody is contending that an unborn child’s right to life is equal to that of an adult woman...

That's exactly what the 8th says:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right

If you're going to oppose repeal of the 8th, you should at least read it first.

erica74

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Why do you think yours should top theirs?

That poster doesn't actually think that their belief tops anyone else's, they believe that everyone should have a choice, therefore enabling us all to uphold our beliefs.

Andrew Beef

But nobody is contending that an unborn child’s right to life is equal to that of an adult woman; the salient point is that the unborn child’s right to life trumps the adult woman’s right to kill it.

For those who were asking why my moral code should trump theirs, I’m not contending that it does; there is a concept of objective morality; some things are morally wrong irrespective of what you or I think.

2wsxcde3

KKkitty wrote: »

Stop oppressing women and let them make the right decisions for them.

With all due respect, the pro-choice have been guilty of oppressing women:

Ivana Bacik insults 'C' Case woman who regrets abortion, claims she was "manipulated"
Ivana Bacik, the pro-choice/pro-abortion Labour Senator who has called for the abortion debate to be conducted "in a respectful and dignified fashion" has brought the level of debate to a new low by insulting the rape victim who was the subject of the C Case in 1997 and subsequently expressed regret at having an abortion.
(Source: http://www.politics.ie/forum/labour/...nipulated.html )

‘We are tired of being silenced’: Rape survivors push back against abortion activists
Rape survivors say that they will not be silenced by bullies and plan to hold a speaking event outside the Spencer Hotel on Thursday despite the hotel becoming the second venue to cancel within a week after threats from abortion campaigners.
(Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/we-are-tired-of-being-silenced-rape-survivors-push-back-against-abortion-ac )

Slogans like "we need to trust women" ring hollow when pro-choice activists set out to attack women who speak the truth about abortion.

KKkitty

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yes it can. If a child stumbles on a cliff edge and is hanging over the edge, the state requires you to pull him up before he falls. You can't just sit back and continue eating your ice cream while he's screaming for your help.

They are called "Duty To Rescue" laws. You can't claim bodily autonomy and just do nothing.

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue )

Ok so by your analogy someone has to be born before they can be rescued? They have to be an actual human being outside of the womb before they can be saved? I'm going to stop you right there. As with many countries women's rights, health and general well-being have been disgraceful. We have to change this. We have to be better. Stop oppressing women and let them make the right decisions for them.

pleas advice

'Genetically seperate, human entity' though

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

as in, it is not akin to a toenail clipping, or a scab, or sperm, or egg,

Really? While one can argue [if one so chooses] that a feotus in the womb is a genetically separate entity, completely unlike and distinct from a toenail clipping, or a scab [or even a rib], i doubt if such a claim could be made in respect of genetics when it comes to an egg or sperm. I believe that such a claim would be turning the whole basis of human reproduction, and church knowledge and teachings of same, on its head. IMO, it sound's a mightily strange theory not entirely related to abortion.

2wsxcde3

captbarnacles wrote: »

Women are not vessels for society to use to produce children. Your hospital analogy says clearly how you think. Society cannot demand use of your body and this right extends beyond death.

Yes it can. If a child stumbles on a cliff edge and is hanging over the edge, the state requires you to pull him up before he falls. You can't just sit back and continue eating your ice cream while he's screaming for your help.

They are called "Duty To Rescue" laws. You can't claim bodily autonomy and just do nothing.

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue )

captbarnacles

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Fetuses cannot grow or thrive without the mother as host until at least 24 weeks gestation. Minimum.
So before that time, the baby is very much part of her.

While it depends on her for survival, it’s very much part of her. And it should be up to her what happens to it.

A homeless person in a coma is completely dependent on the hospital. That doesn't give the hospital the right to pull the plug whenever they want. If we can keep a human being alive (and in the case of an unborn baby, keep them alive so they become an independent human being when they are born), i believe we have a duty to keep them alive.

Women are not vessels for society to use to produce children. Your hospital analogy says clearly how you think. Society cannot demand use of your body and this right extends beyond death.

captbarnacles

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Fetuses cannot grow or thrive without the mother as host until at least 24 weeks gestation. Minimum.
So before that time, the baby is very much part of her.

While it depends on her for survival, it’s very much part of her. And it should be up to her what happens to it.

A homeless person in a coma is completely dependent on the hospital. That doesn't give the hospital the right to pull the plug whenever they want. If we can keep a human being alive (and in the case of an unborn baby, keep them alive so they become an independent human being when they are born), i believe we have a duty to keep them alive.

Hospitals are not equal to a woman's womb. Society is NOT allowed to demand use of your body and this right even extends to when you are dead.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

A homeless person in a coma is completely dependent on the hospital. That doesn't give the hospital the right to pull the plug whenever they want. If we can keep a human being alive (and in the case of an unborn baby, keep them alive so they become an independent human being when they are born), i believe we have a duty to keep them alive.

Unless the homeless person in hospital is using another person as a human incubator then the situations are not the same and cannot be compared.

Bannasidhe

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

And keep it switched on when the person looks like they will live.

Not quite.
When it is deemed there is no brain function but the body is technically alive they stop feeding - essentially meaning a technically alive but not sentient person starves to death.

Sentience is the determining factor. A fetus under 12 weeks old is not sentient.

2wsxcde3

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What are you talking about?
Hospitals frequently turn off life support when it is deemed the person is no longer sentient.

And keep it switched on when the person looks like they will live.

Bannasidhe

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

A homeless person in a coma is completely dependent on the hospital. That doesn't give the hospital the right to pull the plug whenever they want. If we can keep a human being alive (and in the case of an unborn baby, keep them alive so they become an independent human being when they are born), i believe we have a duty to keep them alive.

What are you talking about?
Hospitals frequently turn off life support when it is deemed the person is no longer sentient.

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

so, it is a distinct human entity. which should afford it some rights, or some consideration from society as a whole,

It is a non-sentient entity of the genus Homo homo sapiens which is utterly dependent on a host for survival. It is incapable of surviving unless it draws all of it's nutrients from the host. It is not capable of thought, emotion, or react to stimuli.

It is 'alive' only in the narrowest sense of the word, a more accurate term would be it exists.

It's host, however, - baring accident/rape - is generally a sentient born human being capable of independent living, thought, emotion, and reaction to stimuli.

To say the two are equal is utter nonsense.

To insist that a woman has to host this dependent entity [your word] against her will is an appalling breach of the humans rights of a living human being.

pleas advice

as in, it is not akin to a toenail clipping, or a scab, or sperm, or egg,

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

'genetically separate' though

Genetically separate - what do you mean by that? It's genes come from it's mum and dad, word origin Genesis, as in the bible. How do you imagine it survives in the womb of the woman if nature did not allow it to consume food from that woman?

kylith

pleas advice wrote: »

so, it is a distinct human entity. which should afford it some rights, or some consideration from society as a whole,

It is not distinct. It is dependent on the woman’s body as a life support system. Therefore she should be allowed to decide whether she wants that or not.

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Fetuses cannot grow or thrive without the mother as host until at least 24 weeks gestation. Minimum.
So before that time, the baby is very much part of her.

While it depends on her for survival, it’s very much part of her. And it should be up to her what happens to it.

A homeless person in a coma is completely dependent on the hospital. That doesn't give the hospital the right to pull the plug whenever they want. If we can keep a human being alive (and in the case of an unborn baby, keep them alive so they become an independent human being when they are born), i believe we have a duty to keep them alive.

pleas advice

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So?

so, it is a distinct human entity. which should afford it some rights, or some consideration from society as a whole,

Water John

If genetically separate is the measure, then the MAP should be banned also.
That generally prevents a fused egg from implanting.

kylith

pleas advice wrote: »

'genetically separate' though

Irrelevant.