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

Bannasidhe

Charmeleon wrote: »

Because it is inside another person and can't benefit or vindicate its rights until after it is born.

It is inside a person who has fundamental human rights and one of those rights should be to refuse to have their bodies used to host a fetus against their will!

And no, all those rights are not 'transferred' - if a pregnant woman is murdered it is not a double homicide. In Common Law jurisdictions there is a crime of 'Child Destruction' when the fetus would have been capable of living outside the womb - but these laws fall short of calling it homicide and were not enacted in the Irish Free State as they were first introduced to the UK and Northern Ireland in 1929.

Charmeleon

kylith wrote: »

So you agree that it can’t benefit from human rights until after it’s born

Only in the same sense that an astronaut can’t vindicate their human rights while alone in a capsule in space. Just because you have no practical use for them under current conditions doesn’t disqualify you from bearing them.

kylith

Charmeleon wrote: »

Of course it's a construct, it's a barrier we put up between victims and people who would treat them like animals or objects. We call them fundemental because we understand there are no good arguments for allowing exceptions, only an opening for barbarity.

But we, as a society, decide who they are extended to, an so far that is not foetuses

kylith

Charmeleon wrote: »

Because it is inside another person and can't benefit or vindicate its rights until after it is born.

So you agree that it can’t benefit from human rights until after it’s born

Charmeleon

kylith wrote: »

Fundamental human rights are a human construct, guaranteed by the state. The universe, planet earth, or Nature does not give you a right to life. The universe doesn’t give a damn if you live or die.

Of course it's a construct, it's a barrier we put up between victims and people who would treat them like animals or objects. We call them fundemental because we understand there are no good arguments for allowing exceptions, only an opening for barbarity.

Charmeleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If that was your point it was badly made.
You made a statement of fact which simply isn't true.

At no point, historically or socially, has a fetus been considered to have fundamental human rights. Not even the 8th grants that as it does not recognise the unborn as a citizen just as 'alive'. Nor does the State recognise a fetus as a 'person' and as such does not extend the same rights as it does to a born child - hence no child benefit.

Because it is inside another person and can't benefit or vindicate its rights until after it is born.

Bannasidhe

Charmeleon wrote: »

The point you missed was how we define what constitutes a person of value or standing in the community varies by historical or cultural context. 'Fundamental human rights' by definition means you or I, the government or society have absolutely no business or input putting our own criteria or barriers in between a human and their fundamental rights. We can have additional rights but all human life has a basic right to life.

If that was your point it was badly made.
You made a statement of fact which simply isn't true.

At no point, historically or socially, has a fetus been considered to have fundamental human rights. Not even the 8th grants that as it does not recognise the unborn as a citizen just as 'alive'. Nor does the State recognise a fetus as a 'person' and as such does not extend the same rights as it does to a born child - hence no child benefit.

JDD

I guess I must be an outlier a bit in my beliefs

I believe a foetus is human. I think these arguments are useless actually. I don't believe it has a soul as I'm not religious. I don't think any human has any automatic right to anything, except for the rules we as a society impose in order to ensure it doesn't all dissolve into anarchy.

Lets put the actual procreation aspect of it aside for moment. I think it would be completely immoral (not to say illegal) to create an embryo in a laboratory and then forceably implant it into someone and make them carry it to term. I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference that the embryo is a human. We accept all sorts of circumstances within our society where a human life is ended (self defence, war, the Pill, embryos in IVF clinics, etc). It's the equivalent of grevious bodily harm.

I still believe that a lot of motivation for holding a pro-life view is because of that bit at the start, the procreation bit. Because a woman engaged in the act of sex while knowing there's a small chance that their contraception could fail, that is excuse enough to say that the grevious bodily harm is warranted. And that stems from the archaic notion that the woman is responsible for upholding the moral stance that sex should not occur outside of solely wanted to procreate. A sort of "sure isn't it good enough for her, she shouldn't have been shagging around in the first place". Nowhere do you see this more than when people say they're in favour of repeal but only in cases of FFA (the foetus won't survive anyway) or rape (well sure she wasn't shagging around so she held up her moral side of the bargain, and god I'd look like an awful ****e if I made her stay pregnant after being raped).

Let me set out my stall here. I've had three kids, all C-sections. The three pregnancies and three surgical procedures have given me various health problems. My last pregnancy I had suspected placenta accretia, a very serious pregnancy complication. If I got pregnant again, I would have a 60-80% chance of actually having it. This may result in nothing more than a few blood transfusions at birth, or I may have permanent damage to my cervix, bladder, and surrounding organs, or (and it's difficult to find recent stats on this) there is a 7% maternal mortality rate.

I've got my tubes tied so I don't get pregnant again. But since my third pregnancy occurred even though I religiously (no pun intended) took the Pill, I can't be completely sure that I won't be one of the 0.1% who get pregnant after tubal ligation.

If I get pregnant again I'll be ordering the termination pill online before the 12 week mark. I can't take that sort of chance that my kids will be left without a mother. Nor do I want to take the chance that I'll be permanently incapacitated. It's not fair on me, and it's not fair on my children. I should be able to take this choice, for me and for my family, with the support of my GP. But I'm left trusting directions on a website and possibly having to turn up at St. Vincents A&E if something goes wrong. Under current legislation, I could be imprisoned. It's just a nonsensical situation.

So that's why I'm voting repeal. And I'll be trying to convince everyone I know to do the same.

kylith

Charmeleon wrote: »

The point you missed was how we define what constitutes a person of value or standing in the community varies by historical or cultural context. 'Fundamental human rights' by definition means you or I, the government or society have absolutely no business or input putting our own criteria or barriers in between a human and their fundamental rights. We can have additional rights but all human life has a basic right to life.

Fundamental human rights are a human construct, guaranteed by the state. The universe, planet earth, or Nature does not give you a right to life. The universe doesn’t give a damn if you live or die.

Martina1991

Andrew Beef wrote:

Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.

How can you say every foetus has a right to life except in those cases.

You're either for protecting every unborn child or you're not.

Charmeleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are conflating two very different things and frankly speaking utter nonsense.

Baptism has no legal standing nor does it confer 'personhood'. Not being baptised meant a child/adult could not be buried in ground that was deemed consecrated to a Christian faith not that a child/adult wasn't a human.
It just so happened that most of the cemeteries in Ireland were controlled by the Roman Catholic Church and with their usual empathy they refused to allow proper burial. As we have seen, some parts of that particular organisation preferred septic tanks - even when disposing of baptised children.
ALL children born in Ireland since the enactment of the Registration of Births Act 1863 are required by law to be registered - once this is done they are legally a person - baptism or no baptism.

For example the Goldberg family of Harcourt St in Dublin appear in the census of 1911 as they are recognised as living human beings - they were not, however, baptised. http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Dublin/Fitzwilliam/Harcourt_Street/73041/

There were 3 Jewish cemeteries in Dublin alone, the oldest dating back to 1660. If unbaptised people - such as Jews - were not recognised as human why would they need cemeteries? According to your statement they would have been 'medical waste'.

You didn't really think that through did you?

The point you missed was how we define what constitutes a person of value or standing in the community varies by historical or cultural context. 'Fundamental human rights' by definition means you or I, the government or society have absolutely no business or input putting our own criteria or barriers in between a human and their fundamental rights. We can have additional rights but all human life has a basic right to life.

Captain Obvious

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.

Why incest and rape cases?

Bannasidhe

Charmeleon wrote: »

The same pretty much applied to unbaptised babies in a historical context. It doesn’t make any difference to how an objective evaluation should approach the problem.

You are conflating two very different things and frankly speaking utter nonsense.

Baptism has no legal standing nor does it confer 'personhood'. Not being baptised meant a child/adult could not be buried in ground that was deemed consecrated to a Christian faith not that a child/adult wasn't a human.
It just so happened that most of the cemeteries in Ireland were controlled by the Roman Catholic Church and with their usual empathy they refused to allow proper burial. As we have seen, some parts of that particular organisation preferred septic tanks - even when disposing of baptised children.
ALL children born in Ireland since the enactment of the Registration of Births Act 1863 are required by law to be registered - once this is done they are legally a person - baptism or no baptism.

For example the Goldberg family of Harcourt St in Dublin appear in the census of 1911 as they are recognised as living human beings - they were not, however, baptised. http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Dublin/Fitzwilliam/Harcourt_Street/73041/

There were 3 Jewish cemeteries in Dublin alone, the oldest dating back to 1660. If unbaptised people - such as Jews - were not recognised as human why would they need cemeteries? According to your statement they would have been 'medical waste'.

You didn't really think that through did you?

zedhead

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.

Is the foetus any less if it is the result of rape. Why is it ok to kill these if you truly believe that a foetus deserves these rights?

kylith

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.

Allowing it in rape cases raises difficulties. Do you wait for conviction? That can take years. Would it require just a Garda report? The rate of false reporting would skyrocket. Do you take the woman’s word that she was raped and allow it without formal reporting? What’s the difference between that and allowing it on request?

Andrew Beef

NuMarvel wrote: »

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).

What would you like to see happen after repeal?

Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.

Charmeleon

seamus wrote: »

Our constitution doesn't even recognise the foetus as human. Just recognises a right to life.

The constitution is at odds with itself; a foetus miscarried before 24 weeks is medical waste, recorded in the mother's medical history, and is not given any kind of individual recognition that it ever existed.

Because it is not legally recognised as a human.

The same pretty much applied to unbaptised babies in a historical context. It doesn’t make any difference to how an objective evaluation should approach the problem.

seamus

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I presume you mean except for our constitution?

Our constitution doesn't even recognise the foetus as human. Just recognises a right to life.

The constitution is at odds with itself; a foetus miscarried before 24 weeks is medical waste, recorded in the mother's medical history, and is not given any kind of individual recognition that it ever existed.

Because it is not legally recognised as a human.

Charmeleon

seamus wrote: »

It's the bit that's being debated by some, but by international standards the foetus is not human. There's not really any disagreement about it.

There is no legal basis, and not even any historical precedent for affording human rights (or part thereof) to a foetus, especially one before 12 weeks.

Isn’t that only due to it benefiting from being inside a person who does have fundemental human rights? It only becomes an issue when that person wants to evict it, otherwise the rights of the mother affords protection to both.

Charmeleon

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It foesnt exist as a human so how can it have human rights?

What is it then? Maybe the mother will give birth to a fish, or a tree, or an armchair?

Go into a lab with embryos from lots of different animals, are they all identical? There is no inherent difference between the embryo of a cow and a giraffe?

Captain Obvious

seamus wrote: »

It's the bit that's being debated by some, but by international standards the foetus is not human. There's not really any disagreement about it.

There is no legal basis, and not even any historical precedent for affording human rights (or part thereof) to a foetus, especially one before 12 weeks.

I presume you mean except for our constitution?

seamus

Captain Obvious wrote: »

By what standard? Isn't this the fundamental point that's being disagreed on?

It's the bit that's being debated by some, but by international standards the foetus is not human. There's not really any disagreement about it.

There is no legal basis, and not even any historical precedent for affording human rights (or part thereof) to a foetus, especially one before 12 weeks.

Captain Obvious

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It foesnt exist as a human

By what standard? Isn't this the fundamental point that's being disagreed on?

Wombatman

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 )

These laws apply to a real living child, a citizen of the county. Children can become wards of the state because the state can physically care for them.

There are practical reasons why these laws shouldn't apply to embryos. Embryos can't become wards of the state because they are wholly dependent on the woman carrying them. Therefore the dominion governing the health of the embryos is totally with the carrying woman. In very rare cases embryos have been born and survived without the birth mother after 21 week.

Can you sit back and think about this for a while rather than going through your arsenal of trite rebuttals for a counter post.

Considering my point above, would you be happy with abortion up to 12 weeks even though logically the state shouldn't have a say until around 21 weeks?

January

splinter65 wrote: »

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%3famp

That's not true either.

https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2017/08/16/doctor_says_cbs_news_claims_on_iceland_downs_and_ab/

Annasopra

Andrew Beef wrote: »

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

You seem to be missing the entire point. The 8th amendment contends this.

Annasopra

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 foesnt exist as a human so how can it have human rights?

NuMarvel

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).

What would you like to see happen after repeal?

ohnonotgmail

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.

They do. and unfortunately a lot of people won't.

Annasopra

AnneFrank wrote: »

I think you're missing the point,

Its a clever tactic. Make out that people are being are being bullied and silenced. Its untrue though.