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

SusieBlue

tonymontanavu wrote: »

This is my first post on boards and I probably only joined to write it!
This is a subject that I find both sides of the argument extremely frustrating. I have an opinion on the result that I would like but find it difficult to discuss the matter with either side. I might as well state my side for transparency; I feel the 8th amendment should be repealed and terminations allowed in all cases up to twelve weeks and where the mothers welfare is compromised (within reason in terms of the stage of the pregnancy).
I find it extremely insensitive that people on the same side as me reduce the "fetus" to nothing more than cells and argue sentience or any other measure of how human "it" is. Regardless of all of that, it is a baby in the early stages of development, different to a developed baby but not without value and rightly treasured by many potential parents.
I also hate the teen/20's women that feel victimised that it is not already an option and it's their body their choice. They are of course perfectly correct regarding circumstances out of the ordinary like the mothers health is comprised or if they were forcibly impregnated etc (Any pro life person who argues to keep the situation exactly as it is heartless in my opinion) but they do currently have the choice of not having sex and therefore not risking the chance of becoming pregnant. What they are arguing is that if they choose to have sex (which always carries a risk of pregnancy regardless of protection) and they do indeed get pregnant they wouldlike another choice- to end that pregnancy. I think that is a reasonable position but you have to accept that is the position.
The crux of the argument for me is this - abortion is already available for these women but is not easy to access, involves delays, risks the woman's health travelling etc etc. To keep it inaccessible here is needlessly cruel.
If you are religious, don't get one - others can and you will still go to heaven etc.
People should just be honest - we are human not some higher power, we kill and eat other creatures because we like to eat them and we have a similar ability to block out the moral implications of an abortion - and that is fine.

I was somewhat agreeing with you and understanding your viewpoint until you got to part bolded.
We should be nothing but proud and supportive of all the young women who are so dedicated to their cause and having their voices heard.
I know I sound like a broken record but it’s very easy to be so dismissive about it when it isn’t your bodily autonomy at stake - which brings me to my next point.

Young women in their teens and twenties are the next generation of pregnant women and mothers and arguably, the outcome of this referendum will effect their lives more than any other age group in the country.

And I say that for both the Save and the Repeal side - if anything at all, it’s great to see young people taking an interest in politics and the referendum, regardless of which side they fall on.
It should be celebrated.

realitykeeper

kylith wrote: »

we’ll just re-legalise marital rape, slavery, and wife beating, shall we?

The bible is one of the worst sources of morality one could think of.

There does seem to be a new "morality" rapidly evolving in western society. To understand what that new morality will look like, just look to the old USSR. I know millennials and society at large do not think the west will become Communist but in truth we are already there. All that is required is the collapse of (what passes as) capitalism in the west and then you will see what I mean.

When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, the USSR was perceived as a joyless place where nobody ever seemed to smile or laugh. The Soviets had a kind of morality that would have fitted the "me too" people like a glove. Unfortunately, it also came with an ugly and frightening side.

tonymontanavu

This is my first post on boards and I probably only joined to write it!
This is a subject that I find both sides of the argument extremely frustrating. I have an opinion on the result that I would like but find it difficult to discuss the matter with either side. I might as well state my side for transparency; I feel the 8th amendment should be repealed and terminations allowed in all cases up to twelve weeks and where the mothers welfare is compromised (within reason in terms of the stage of the pregnancy).
I find it extremely insensitive that people on the same side as me reduce the "fetus" to nothing more than cells and argue sentience or any other measure of how human "it" is. Regardless of all of that, it is a baby in the early stages of development, different to a developed baby but not without value and rightly treasured by many potential parents.
I also hate the teen/20's women that feel victimised that it is not already an option and it's their body their choice. They are of course perfectly correct regarding circumstances out of the ordinary like the mothers health is comprised or if they were forcibly impregnated etc (Any pro life person who argues to keep the situation exactly as it is heartless in my opinion) but they do currently have the choice of not having sex and therefore not risking the chance of becoming pregnant. What they are arguing is that if they choose to have sex (which always carries a risk of pregnancy regardless of protection) and they do indeed get pregnant they wouldlike another choice- to end that pregnancy. I think that is a reasonable position but you have to accept that is the position.
The crux of the argument for me is this - abortion is already available for these women but is not easy to access, involves delays, risks the woman's health travelling etc etc. To keep it inaccessible here is needlessly cruel.
If you are religious, don't get one - others can and you will still go to heaven etc.
People should just be honest - we are human not some higher power, we kill and eat other creatures because we like to eat them and we have a similar ability to block out the moral implications of an abortion - and that is fine.

[Deleted User]

Charmeleon wrote: »

I think everyone agrees with that. The disagreement is over the proposition that the foetus is as important as a batch of out of date bread. My children are infinitely more important than my pets, I don't treat the animals like walking medical waste though.

I don't believe anyone actually going through an abortion believes that the fetus isn't important.
But, living breathing women are more important, & that is the issue with the 8th amendment.
I personally take great offence to the fact that The State can treat me like a second class citizen because of this amendment.

Charmeleon

bubblypop wrote: »

It's not a person & it's not a child.
Most rational thinking people just believe that a living breathing woman is more important than a foetus.

I think everyone agrees with that. The disagreement is over the proposition that the foetus is as important as a batch of out of date bread. My children are infinitely more important than my pets, I don't treat the animals like walking medical waste though.

[Deleted User]

Ismisejack wrote: »

Everyone is forgetting the person most affected by an abortion, the child killed, with that in mind in considering starting a new forum as there is two people affected here, the mother and the child, and this forum clearly has no interest discussing the child

It's not a person & it's not a child.
Most rational thinking people just believe that a living breathing woman is more important than a foetus.

Charmeleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet it makes me neither squirm nor uncomfortable nor compelled to ignore anything, and the implications you suggest are either A) Not that relevant or not actually that bad anyway.

You will find me MORE than willing and capable of having the "uncomfortable" conversations on this subject if they are discussions you actually want to have.

How many times has this rationalisation been repeated to excuse atrocities I wonder. It doesn't bother me, therefore it must be morally justified.

Charmeleon

....... wrote: »

There is nothing uncomfortable about it at all.

But you are conflating two entirely different things and making sweeping statements that cover both.

Comatose patients are not the same as fetuses for many reasons - not just because of sentience.

There is no meaningful comparison to be made between someone in a coma and a fetus despite your best attempts to link them.

Human worth doesnt apply to fetuses that are 12 weeks old.

Let's not get confused, the point was made that sentience was the defining characteristic of what makes a life valuable. We can argue over other things but don't make it out like I am making sweeping statements just because I'm not addressing your own views in every single post.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Ismisejack

Everyone is forgetting the person most affected by an abortion, the child killed, with that in mind in considering starting a new forum as there is two people affected here, the mother and the child, and this forum clearly has no interest discussing the child

pleas advice

^I don't think that means what you think it means...

Consonata

Charmeleon wrote: »

Had. A person in a coma is not sentient, otherwise they wouldn’t be in a coma. There may be brain activity but they do not sense and do not respond, hold no fear of harm or suffering. Similarly a fetus may have plenty of brain activity before it becomes sentient.

2cbc845ba4061cd5be7d3d8c92f8e6bfe4647b89192e1c240789fe2b842626e5.jpg

Zubeneschamali

Charmeleon wrote: »

What gives you or anyone else the right to set the bar?

It is a practical necessity that some bar is set in law.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yet it makes me neither squirm nor uncomfortable nor compelled to ignore anything, and the implications you suggest are either A) Not that relevant or

not actually that bad anyway.

You will find me MORE than willing and capable of having the "uncomfortable" conversations on this subject if they are discussions you actually want to have.

Charmeleon

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You suggested that comatose patients have sentience: ‘being unconscious is not the same as thing as not having sentience’.

I’m laying out the implications of defining the value of life as a measure of sentience. I know it makes people squirm and uncomfortable when it means looking harder at arbitrary moral judgements but it can’t be simply ignored.

Seems to be the standard reply when uncomfortable with discussions around drawing a line in the sand on human worth.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fetal-brain-nervous-system/

Since you merely pasted and link and left it hanging, it is not clear what your point is. However the user you are replying to has made the claim there is no activity in the brain at 16 weeks.

The only mention of the word "activity" in your link is " At 28 weeks, fetal brainwave activity features sleep cycles" which is well beyond 16 weeks.

Now in isolation what the user said IS an over simplification. This is true. But given the context in which he said it, I do not see anything in your hit-and-run linking here that is relevant. Could you elaborate? Assuming elaborate is the right word to use when you have not actually said anything here that is.

Charmeleon

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Memory and instinctual responses to a stimulus are not the same as sentience, the functions of the ancient areas of the brain can continue when the pre-frontal cortex is shut down. There is no executive functioning or emotional drives, the basics of human sentience as distinct from simple organisms.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Edward M

....... wrote: »

You clearly havent had any experience with people in comas.

They do sense and they do respond. Vigorously at times.

And they often remember conversations that happened around them while they were comatose.

Being unconsciousness is not the same thing as not having sentience.

You would hardly say you had no sentience because you were asleep would you?

A fetus has no brain activity before 16 weeks or so.

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fetal-brain-nervous-system/

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Charmeleon wrote: »

So you are ok with keeping comatose people alive and harvesting their organs, then disposing of them?

It is a completely off topic question (not that I have a problem with that myself) and my answer to it is LONG. Very long. And people already complain about the length of my posts. So I will give a relatively short answer, but with a lot of trepidation that answering is not the right thing to do. But I do not like to ignore or dodge questions as many other users do.

The answer is yes AND no.

The yes comes from the fact I think I would very much like to live in a society populated by a species that are ok with organ donation being an opt OUT rather than opt IN structure. There is no intellectually rational reason to treat the empty shell of an otherwise dead person with any real moral and ethical concern. It is essentially a pile of organs and nothing more.

The no comes from realizing we do NOT live in that society. The empty shell of our loved ones has meaning to us. And the moral and ethical concern we show for dead bodies is not actually solely moral and ethical concern for the dead (though even when dead we do tend to respect the rights retrospectively which is different from a fetus who has never yet attained them, but Consonata already pointed that out above). No, it is for the living. And until that dynamic is changed, and I feel it should be changed, I could not put my name to the system you describe.... even though in principle I have nothing at all against it...... nor can I see any reason why I should.

Charmeleon wrote: »

The thing you don’t seem to get is that the very proposition that human life has to pass your test of worthiness is morally highly suspect from the get-go. What gives you or anyone else the right to set the bar?

The simple answer there is I am not setting the bar, I am discussing the bar. And that is what morality and ethics means to me. It is not a thing, it is a conversation. Morality and Ethics are basically the result that comes from our discourse as a species. And my arguments, inputs, ideas and positions are just MY input into that discourse. I am not setting the bar, I am discussing it with my fellow humans so that WE ALL set that bar together. That is what discourse and democracy mean to me. And I hold human discourse over pretty much everything else in our world.

And when you say "the lines can’t be re-drawn when social circumstances and norms change" I think that is how it SHOULD be even though the way you write it suggests you think it a bad thing and somehow consistency is better. I can not see why you would want that or think that.

Morality and Ethics, outside the realms of religion that is, should not be something set in stone for all time. It should evolve with us and along side us. As we as a species evolve, get new knowledge, new technologies, and new insights our morality and ethics should evolve in response.

If for example my "side" goes on to "win" this election, I would not want the "no" side to go away and shut up. I would want them to keep talking, keep finding arguments and evidence and reasoning, and keep trying to change the new social norms BACK to what they want.

Because whether I win or lose in any election I do not think the conversation stops. It should ALWAYS go on. And win or lose any election on abortion, I will always continue to gladly have the debate. And hope the rest of society does too.

Charmeleon wrote: »

It is worthy of moral rights by its own existence.

But is it? Is life worth moral rights just by virtue of existence? The millions of bacteria or viruses you killed last time you took medication would beg to differ. The trees dead last time you wrote on paper would suggest otherwise. The animals and plants dead in the last meal you might have eaten containing meat or vegetables too. Not to mention any fly you ever swatted and killed in irritation, or the insects killed en masse by pesticides for your last salad.

It is quite clear that right, specifically the right to life, was not afforded those billions of life forms merely by virtue of their being life forms or existence. So clearly something else is in play if and when we DO consider a life form worthy of such concerns. So it is not me "setting the bar" as you put it, so much as me merely making explicit what it is everyone is pretty much doing all the time anyway.

Charmeleon wrote: »

Had. A person in a coma is not sentient, otherwise they wouldn’t be in a coma. There may be brain activity but they do not sense and do not respond, hold no fear of harm or suffering. Similarly a fetus may have plenty of brain activity before it becomes sentient.

I think you are conflating two things that absolutely should not be conflated. They are the state of BEING conscious, and the stage of HAVING The faculty of consciousness.

They are two entirely different things and it is from the LATTER that I think we mediate moral and ethical concern. A coma patient, rather than a brain dead person, is an example of an entity with the faculty of human consciousness. It might not be active in this given moment, but they have it. And they should be treated as an entity that has it.

A fetus at 0-16 weeks however not only does NOT have it, they even lack many of the pre-requisites of having it. It is like looking for radio waves not only when there is no radio waves, but in fact the broadcasting tower has not even been built yet.

Charmeleon

pilly wrote: »

No, I think you're confused Charmelon, a person in a coma already has sentience.

Had. A person in a coma is not sentient, otherwise they wouldn’t be in a coma. There may be brain activity but they do not sense and do not respond, hold no fear of harm or suffering. Similarly a fetus may have plenty of brain activity before it becomes sentient.

pilly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Chapter 1, page 1 of the Iona playbook.

I should have known to check the join date before I even bothered replying. There'll be plenty more of these shills by May.

pilly

Charmeleon wrote: »

So the prospect of gaining sentience is the guiding principle. Interesting.

No, I think you're confused Charmelon, a person in a coma already has sentience.

Charmeleon

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was replying to the poster who said sentience is the only thing that holds value. Dead bodies don’t have sentience but we are appalled at mass graves, desecration and defilement of a body etc. So clearly we value human life and human bodies far beyond the artificial excuses for making a fetus worth nothing.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Charmeleon

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How do you know a person in a coma won’t have heart failure? Might as well kill them now. No guarantees in this life.