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

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How much concern do you or any pro-lifer express for fertilized eggs created in a lab during IVF treatment? They are alive, they are uniquely human just like a 10 week fetus, they have the same potential to grow into a human being...

And nobody in today's debate gives a rat's ass about them.

Now - imagine for a moment that I feel the same way about an 8 week fetus as you feel about an IVF fertilized egg.

That's not my point, but anyway, I care more about them than to compare their existence to a fly.
I think comparing an unborn at any stage to having as little value as a fly is degrading to humanity.
Let's campaign on the basis that abortion should be as easy as swatting a fly, even if you do believe it, and see how the campaign goes.
Absolutely soulless language IMO, and that's not a religious soulless, that's a human feeling I mean when I say it.
So many great stories on here from women who had abortions, wrestled with their thoughts before they reached their decisions.
Comparisons of fetus to fly's is a mockery of human existence IMO.

[Deleted User]

Ismisejack wrote: »

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

What about smokers? And drinkers? And drug takers?
Should we deny them medical treatment because they knew the risks?

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

I don't understand how anyone can equate a pregnancy at even the very earliest stage, as having only even the same moral or ethical concern as a fly, or any other form of life outside of humanity for that matter, by another human being.

How much concern do you or any pro-lifer express for fertilized eggs created in a lab during IVF treatment? They are alive, they are uniquely human just like a 10 week fetus, they have the same potential to grow into a human being...

And nobody in today's debate gives a rat's ass about them.

Now - imagine for a moment that I feel the same way about an 8 week fetus as you feel about an IVF fertilized egg.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ismisejack wrote: »

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

So what? Just because people know the risk of a certain action, that does not mean we stand our high horse over them and wag our finger at them when it goes wrong.

In some sport for example people cover themselves in protective gear. Sometimes this does not help and they still get injured.

What happens in that moment? Does a doctor run over to them and instantly help them?

Or does some knight in rusty armor..... that he believes to be pure white in his own self satisfied head........... ride over on his equally pathetic matted high steed..... and wag a finger screaming "You knew the risks kid!".

Check your privilege at the door please, not everyone is sexually educated. Not everyone consents to sex. Not everyone even knows they HAD sex. Not everyone can simply practice meticulous abstinence. Not everyone lives in the ideal world you merely imagine exists it seems.

And in fact places that have practiced the nonsense abstinence approaches to sex and sexuality have resulted in MORE unwanted and MORE teen pregnancies.

Further not everyone who seeks an abortion does so because of an unplanned pregnancy either. Some people actually do plan to get pregnant but when it happens their circumstances suddenly change and parenthood etc is no longer a viable option. Perhaps they lose their job. Perhaps they lose their partner. Perhaps there is a change in their health or well being. This assumption that anyone seeking an abortion was either raped, or irresponsible with contraception, or contraception failed.... is not a safe assumption.

The number of reasons people seek abortion are likely as individual as they themselves are. That you assume narratives in order to protect an agenda you can not defend in itself.... reveals much.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

I do understand what your arguments are, but I don't understand how anyone can equate a pregnancy at even the very earliest stage, as having only even the same moral or ethical concern as a fly, or any other form of life outside of humanity for that matter, by another human being.

Confusing that in one breath you claim to understand what my arguments are but then in the next breath claim you do not understand the one thing that pretty much makes up the entirety of what my arguments are. Which is it?

Either way I am happy to explain my arguments/position on abortion again:

1) Morals and ethics, unless you are some believer in nonsense like gods, has only one source. And that is consciousness and sentience.

2) Morals and ethics are in the business of doing one thing.... mediating the actions and well being of conscious and sentient creatures.

3) I therefore suspect, and other arguments and thought experiments bear this out, that it is TO consciousness and sentience that we are generally assigning our moral and ethical concern.

4) Therefore any entity that is in NO WAY in possession of these faculties, is therefore not an entity worthy of moral or ethical concern.

5) The fetus at 0-16 weeks is an entity that lacks the faculty ENTIRELY. A common housefly has more capacity for sentience than such a fetus. Therefore I would have more (though still very little) moral and ethical concern for the well being of the common house fly than I have for a 16 week old fetus.

If there is any part of that that requires further explanation, give me the number from 1 to 5 and I will elaborate on it further.

Edward M wrote: »

because if that is the argument for abortion on demand, I would feel all humanity has gone out of the debate.

And I would simply say the opposite. The core of my argument is not to throw humanity out of the debate, but to refine our understanding of what the word "Humanity" actually means in this context, where it applies, and why it applies.

Rather than just fly the flag of the single word "Humanity" therefore.... what I move to do is distill out from behind that word the actual attributes, the actual values, and the actual goals that are hidden behind it.

WHAT precisely about "humanity" is it we value, should value, could value. And equally importantly WHY.

And what I have found is that everything on the list that that endeavor produces........ are PRECISELY the attributes that a 16 week old fetus lacks. Not just slightly lacks, but ENTIRELY lacks. There is no coherent basis being offered for affording moral and ethical concern to said fetus. Least of all on this thread.

So humanity is not gone out of my debate, rather it has been made front and center of it, and a very bright very revealing spot light turned on it to see what parts of it are shadow, and what parts are actual substance.

January

Ismisejack wrote: »

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

Its anti choice bingo all over again.

So you're in favour of stopping women from travelling for abortions?

Ismisejack

January wrote: »

What about the ones who use contraception and get pregnant?

Read the box it clearly states it’s a risk you must be willing to take

January

Ismisejack wrote: »

]Here's a reply to AmDublins post btw Women don’t magically get pregnant, and I don’t need explain the chemistry so everyone is aware, therefore a woman should think hard before taking any risks that may lead to pregnancy as killing the poor innocent baby to solve there own problems is in humane and cannot be tolerated. Nobody is forcing a woman to have a child, she holds the control over whether she has one or not, and must realise if they go through the child making procedures ( unprotected sex) and a pregnancy occurs that was her choice and she cannot go back on that at the expense of a precious life.

What about the ones who use contraception and get pregnant?

Ismisejack

]Here's a reply to AmDublins post btw Women don’t magically get pregnant, and I don’t need explain the chemistry so everyone is aware, therefore a woman should think hard before taking any risks that may lead to pregnancy as killing the poor innocent baby to solve there own problems is in humane and cannot be tolerated. Nobody is forcing a woman to have a child, she holds the control over whether she has one or not, and must realise if they go through the child making procedures ( unprotected sex) and a pregnancy occurs that was her choice and she cannot go back on that at the expense of a precious life.

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is a non sentient entity being aborted. Non sentient entities do not have the capacity of choice in the first place. You can not "deny" something that it does not have in the first place any more than you can pour water out of an empty cup.

Do you pour water out of empty cups often?

I have not seen anyone denying that though. We all know that it is, biologically, life. Or more specifically, since it can not survive independently in any way, it is a step in a life cycle. But it is very much "life" in the sense of that life cycle. But that is about all.

What is being "denied" here is that mere "life" alone is not what makes it worth of rights or our moral and ethical concern. It is not "Life" in terms of what we are discussing when we have moral and ethical discourse. There is no more (in fact less) basis for moral and ethical concern for such a fetus as there is for the common house fly.

Really if you can not understand what our arguments even are, how do you propose to address them?

I'd reply to that by saying, I do understand what your arguments are, but I don't understand how anyone can equate a pregnancy at even the very earliest stage, as having only even the same moral or ethical concern as a fly, or any other form of life outside of humanity for that matter, by another human being.
Even if abortion is to be considered, I would hope that there would be more concern shown than that, because if that is the argument for abortion on demand, I would feel all humanity has gone out of the debate.

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

life cycle of a human, though. not a flower, or a house-fly,

Again no one is denying that either. You genuinely appear to think you have a point to make. Or at least that is the benefit of the doubt I want to give as I try to suspect the best of people before suspecting the worst. But whatever that point is, you are not getting it across at all I am afraid.

pleas advice

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have not seen anyone denying that though. We all know that it is, biologically, life. Or more specifically, since it can not survive independently in any way, it is a step in a life cycle. But it is very much "life" in the sense of that life cycle.

life cycle of a human, though. not a flower, or a house-fly,

What is being "denied" here is that mere "life" alone is not what makes it worth of rights or our moral and ethical concern. It is not "Life" in terms of what we are discussing when we have moral and ethical discourse. There is no more (in fact less) basis for moral and ethical concern for such a fetus as there is for the common house fly.

Really if you can not understand what our arguments even are, how do you propose to address them?

nozzferrahhtoo

Ismisejack wrote: »

by aborting a baby ur denying it it’s choice as to whether it can live or not, surely if yee were about choice yee wouldn’t deny a baby the choice of whether it lives or is murdered.

It is a non sentient entity being aborted. Non sentient entities do not have the capacity of choice in the first place. You can not "deny" something that it does not have in the first place any more than you can pour water out of an empty cup.

Do you pour water out of empty cups often?

pleas advice wrote: »

But it is a life no matter how many times you deny it

I have not seen anyone denying that though. We all know that it is, biologically, life. Or more specifically, since it can not survive independently in any way, it is a step in a life cycle. But it is very much "life" in the sense of that life cycle. But that is about all.

What is being "denied" here is that mere "life" alone is not what makes it worth of rights or our moral and ethical concern. It is not "Life" in terms of what we are discussing when we have moral and ethical discourse. There is no more (in fact less) basis for moral and ethical concern for such a fetus as there is for the common house fly.

Really if you can not understand what our arguments even are, how do you propose to address them?

amdublin

Here's a reply to IsMiseJack's original post btw:

Women's sole purpose in life is not to be here on earth to be incubators for babies when they don't want to be pregnant (which could be for any variety of reasons detailed over and over again in this thread).

If IsMiseJack wants be pregnant then work away but please stop inflicting their archaic old fashioned view on to others.

Abortion is a private matter for each individual to decide.

pleas advice

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A bit like the pro-lifers stance imo

I'm glad you pointed that out, would have flown right over my head otherwise...

Timberrrrrrrr

amdublin wrote: »

An archaic word it seems. Archaic eh?

A bit like the pro-lifers stance imo

amdublin

pleas advice wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-English

Was.

Weeeeee get it, it's an old fashioned word.

pleas advice

it was used as a both informal second-person plural and formal honorific, to address a group of equals or superiors or a single superior. While its use is archaic in most of the English-speaking world, it is used in Newfoundland, Northern England, Cornwall, and Ireland to distinguish from the singular "you"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-English

amdublin

pleas advice wrote: »

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yee#Pronoun

An archaic word it seems. Archaic eh?

Bannasidhe

Ismisejack wrote: »

Yet yee never argued my point as there’s no denying twas valod

Perchance thou hast wandering into a time that art not thine ownst and become pateaddled? If tis japes thou hast in mind then begone thou wretch back to whence thou came else thou shalt myss the dunking of the wytch and the burnying of the heretic.

pleas advice

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yee#Pronoun

amdublin

Ismisejack wrote: »

Yet yee never argued my point as there’s no denying twas valod

There's that weird made up thing again.

What are you about?

Timberrrrrrrr

Ismisejack wrote: »

Yet yee didn’t argue with my point as there is no denying it’s valid

There was no point

Just a wall if tripe with made up words thrown in for comedic effect?

Ismisejack

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What a wall of utter tripe

Try using real words next time and maybe people might listen to what you have to say :rolleyes:

Yet yee didn’t argue with my point as there is no denying it’s valid

Ismisejack

amdublin wrote: »

I cannot read this post with that weird yee word.

That's not a word right??

Yet yee never argued my point as there’s no denying twas valod

January

pleas advice wrote: »

It is alive, it is a life...

Well no, it's not alive. It cannot survive outside the womb until around 24 weeks gestation.

Billy86

pleas advice wrote: »

It is alive, it is a life...

These are alive.

If I remove these out of the ground, they will no longer be alive. Does that mean I have committed murder?

david75

Major Marref deja vu reading the last few pages.

The other side are having a totally different debate about a totally different issue.

Timberrrrrrrr

pleas advice wrote: »

It is alive, it is a life...

So are weeds yet I bet you dont think twice about killing them.

pitifulgod

Edward M wrote: »

I fully appreciate the sentiments in Banasidhes posts. They are exactly the same feelings I might have myselif in her situation.
But they are not the feelings being put across by most pro choice posters and posts, that's my point.
Mostly I have read, its no ones business, its between the woman and her doctor, its the woman's choice.
If I believed that, I would say to someone who asked me, its none of my business, make your decision and then I'll support that decision.
Offering a sweetener counts as subtle coercion IMO.

Most pro choice people want to support women regardless of the choice they make. It's their choice ultimately and Bann recognised that.