Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

Options
1…1718202223…48

Comments

  • Options
    #572
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    The 8th amendment is what currently protects the unborn up to birth.
    And when the 8th amendment is repealed, medical ethics will protect the unborn, which is as it should be.
    Taking no action for 3 months and then aborting a human entity at that stage of development is unreasonable.
    The good news is that nobody is forcing you to do anything unreasonable. If you don't want to have an abortion at 12 weeks because you feel it's unreasonable, you don't have to. You'll have a choice. Choice is good.


  • Options
    #573
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    end of the road wrote: »
    abortion is killing the unborn, there is no 2 ways about it.

    But the MAP isn't "killing the unborn", apparently, because you've carefully crafted a definition of "unborn" to make your argument work. A blastocyst that hasn't yet implanted isn't "unborn", but a blastocyst that has implanted is.

    If that makes sense to you, fair enough, but it doesn't seem like a sound basis on which to make national policy around reproductive healthcare.


  • Options
    #574
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    And when the 8th amendment is repealed, medical ethics will protect the unborn, which is as it should be.
    I didn't realise that was going into the Constitution?

    Or do you mean it's like a mission statement or something, that will be framed and hung on the wall in the abortion clinic?


  • Options
    #575
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,027 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    And when the 8th amendment is repealed, medical ethics will protect the unborn, which is as it should be.

    it shouldn't be as it will not protect the unborn to the standard currently existing and we can't rely on ethics alone to protect us. we need the law and the constitution as well.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The good news is that nobody is forcing you to do anything unreasonable. If you don't want to have an abortion at 12 weeks because you feel it's unreasonable, you don't have to. You'll have a choice. Choice is good.

    not when it's at the expence of others. when choice harms others then it has to be removed or restricted. the good news is that if we were to remove all the laws tomorrow, one would have the choice not to take part in the acts that were formerly illegal, nobody would force us to commit said acts. however as many of those acts which are illegal cause harm to others, we cannot remove the laws which prohibit them. abortion on demand is the same, it cannot be allowed as it causes the killing of the unborn.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #576
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    I didn't realise that was going into the Constitution?
    It's not. Somehow, by some bizarre mechanism beyond human ken, medical professionals have ethics that aren't enforced by the Constitution.
    Or do you mean it's like a mission statement or something, that will be framed and hung on the wall in the abortion clinic?
    Maybe you should go talk to a doctor about how ethics work.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #577
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    end of the road wrote: »
    you didn't rebut it, you weren't able to.

    Well in fact I did, but since you consistently ignored and did not reply to any of those posts you are in no position to dictate what was or was not in them. This is the problem with your approach to this conversation. You ignore the posts that rebut yours, then you simply pop up again later pretending you were never rebutted.

    This have your cake and eat it approach to debate is far from honest, yet you persist in it all the same. Which serves me well so I choose to keep you talking so you do it more.
    end of the road wrote: »
    i have given you plenty of reasons across a number of threads

    You have given a few assertions, not reasons, and then refused to back those assertions up. Like your assertion of the existence of a "right to become sentient" which you appear to have invented out of thin air, and have since refused to entertain ANY debate or discussion on. I have systematically rebutted the assertions you have offered on those threads. However rather than simply say over and over again "I gave reasons on other threads" why not repeat those reasons here? After all reference to other threads is a little bit unfair on everyone, given you have been banned from some of those other threads too for not substantiating your positions. So I can not go there to discuss the reasons you claim to have offered there. So offer them here.

    So tell me again what the reasons are, and what argument you can offer for those reasons so they are not merely assertions. Again. Because for all the claims you have offered them, I simply do not recall seeing them.
    end of the road wrote: »
    , but as you support the availability of abortion on demand, it would be impossible for you to see the reality as otherwise

    So ad hominem is your approach now? Rather than give arguments for your position, when asked, you simply invent reasons that I could never understand those arguments. You invent a bias for me, and use that invention as a cop out for actually arguing your case. But ad hominem is on the fallacy list for a reason. Because, it is a fallacy.
    end of the road wrote: »
    lifestyle/convenience is not an argument for it.

    Then take it up with someone who HAS presented that as a reason for it. However since none of my arguments about abortion are even REMOTELY about lifestyle or convenience it is unclear why you bring it up here.
    end of the road wrote: »
    sentience is only relevant to a meat platform. sentience runnong on AI is artificial sentience so is of no comparison or relevance to real sentience. there is everything about the words "Human Being" that confer any basis for moral and ethical concern.

    Three assertions, but as per your usual MO no substantiation for any of them. WHY is it only relevant running on meat? WHY is any other kind "not real"? And WHY does "Human Being" as mere words confer a basis for moral and ethical concern?

    Do you have anything but assertion, or do you plan at some point for the first time ever to back one of them up?


  • Options
    #578
    Sweg
    Registered Users Posts: 40 ✭Sweg


    Nihilists love the idea of full, unrestricted access to abortion, because it would mean that people can act without having to worry about the consequence.


  • Options
    #579
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Sweg wrote: »
    Nihilists love the idea of full, unrestricted access to abortion, because it would mean that people can act without having to worry about the consequence.
    An abortion is a consequence, though.

    What you're actually proposing is weaponizing children to punish "nihilists" for their acts. Yeah that sounds like a really caring society. Not.

    Give me those nihilists every time, I say.


  • Options
    #580
    Sweg
    Registered Users Posts: 40 ✭Sweg


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Weaponizing children to punish "nihilists" for their acts. Yeah that sounds like a really caring society. Not.

    Give me those nihilists every time, I say.

    Your actions have consequences, deal with them.


  • Options
    #581
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Sweg wrote: »
    Your actions have consequences, deal with them.

    An abortion is a consequence. That is a perfectly reasonable way of "dealing with them".

    Bringing an unwanted child into the world so as to punish someone for having sex is not a reasonable course of action IMO.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #582
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Sweg wrote: »
    Your actions have consequences, deal with them.

    Ryanair ticket and an appointment, job done.


  • Options
    #583
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,027 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    volchitsa wrote: »
    An abortion is a consequence. That is a perfectly reasonable way of "dealing with them".

    Bringing an unwanted child into the world so as to punish someone for having sex is not a reasonable course of action IMO.

    it's really not. it's killing other human beings for no good reason. unless it's for a genuine medical necessity of course.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Ryanair ticket and an appointment, job done.

    if someone really wants it that badly, yes . as much as i don't agree with their actions at least the system works well for those who wish to take that route.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #584
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    end of the road wrote: »
    it's really not. it's killing other human beings for no good reason. unless it's for a genuine medical necessity of course.



    if someone really wants it that badly, yes . as much as i don't agree with their actions at least the system works well for those who wish to take that route.

    No human being is killed

    Are you mistaking a discussion on abortion for something else or do you wish to choose accurate terms perhaps


  • Options
    #585
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,027 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No human being is killed

    Are you mistaking a discussion on abortion for something else or do you wish to choose accurate terms perhaps

    a human being is killed. the argument you are likely trying to have is about personhood. human being and personhood aren't mutually exclusive.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #586
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    end of the road wrote: »
    a human being is killed. the argument you are likely trying to have is about personhood. human being and personhood aren't mutually exclusive.

    No the argument you are trying to pretend isn't the issue is whether a foetus is human.

    To continually post on this topic while stating your opinion on the matter as fact is typical but lamentably transparent


  • Options
    #587
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,027 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No the argument you are trying to pretend isn't the issue is whether a foetus is human.

    i don't need to pretend it isn't an issue because it isn't an issue. there is no disagreement that i can see from expertese that a fetus is a human being. it's only on discussion boards that people are denying that it's a human being.
    so again, the argument you are trying to have is about personhood, for which there are many different viewpoints as to when that begins.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #588
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,022 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    end of the road wrote: »
    i don't need to pretend it isn't an issue because it isn't an issue. there is no disagreement that i can see from expertese that a fetus is a human being. it's only on discussion boards that people are denying that it's a human being.
    so again, the argument you are trying to have is about personhood, for which there are many different viewpoints as to when that begins.

    What expertise are you talking about here?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #589
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    end of the road wrote: »
    it's really not. it's killing other human beings for no good reason. unless it's for a genuine medical necessity of course.



    if someone really wants it that badly, yes . as much as i don't agree with their actions at least the system works well for those who wish to take that route.

    So you are saying that we should allow people to kill other human beings if they want to do it "enough". What is "enough" then?

    Why is buying a cheap air ticket and taking a couple of days off work evidence "enough" but being a 17 year old asylum seeker who is in deep distress not "enough"? Or do individual women not matter as long as most women can travel, thus preventing the pressure of dead women in Ireland from building up and causing public disquiet?

    And does this "wanting something enough" also apply to other acts with 10+ years prison associated? Wanting to take a 12 year old to Thailand to abuse her? The system works well for those who wish to take that route, right?


  • Options
    #590
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    end of the road wrote: »
    as much as i don't agree with their actions at least the system works well for those who wish to take that route.

    Except for women too poor to travel, women in prison, already in hospital, in Direct Provision with a visa that doesn't allow travel, under age, in an abusive relationship with a partner who will not allow travel or even enough cash to run for it, etc. etc.

    But who cares about those women: the poor, the imprisoned, the sick, travellers from other lands...

    Hang on, doesn't one of the popular religions hereabouts have something to say on that subject?


  • Options
    #591
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,347 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Sweg wrote: »
    Nihilists love the idea of full, unrestricted access to abortion, because it would mean that people can act without having to worry about the consequence.


    Nobody is arguing in favour of full unrestricted access to abortion.

    What is being argued for is a rebalancing of rights.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #592
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,027 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So you are saying that we should allow people to kill other human beings if they want to do it "enough". What is "enough" then?

    Why is buying a cheap air ticket and taking a couple of days off work evidence "enough" but being a 17 year old asylum seeker who is in deep distress not "enough"? Or do individual women not matter as long as most women can travel, thus preventing the pressure of dead women in Ireland from building up and causing public disquiet?

    And does this "wanting something enough" also apply to other acts with 10+ years prison associated? Wanting to take a 12 year old to Thailand to abuse her? The system works well for those who wish to take that route, right?


    i'm saying that as reprehensible as it is, we cannot stop people from going abroad to kill other human beings in a country where such is legal. it's very simple.
    blanch152 wrote: »
    Nobody is arguing in favour of full unrestricted access to abortion.

    What is being argued for is a rebalancing of rights.

    and thankfully a rebalancing of rights isn't required, as the unborn's right to life is only equal to the mother. that changes where the mother's life or health is at risk, and in that situation the mother will be prioritized.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #593
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    end of the road wrote: »
    i'm saying that as reprehensible as it is, we cannot stop people from going abroad to kill other human beings in a country where such is legal.

    The 8th made doing that illegal, and the pro-life crew campaigned to keep it illegal, and 600,000+ voters agreed with them.

    The reason we cannot stop people is that the pro-life crew lost that time.


  • Options
    #594
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,027 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    The 8th made doing that illegal, and the pro-life crew campaigned to keep it illegal, and 600,000+ voters agreed with them.

    The reason we cannot stop people is that the pro-life crew lost that time.

    it's nothing to do with those voters losing. even if they had won it wouldn't be legally viable long term to stop people traveling to commit acts that are legal in other countries.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #595
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    end of the road wrote: »
    it's nothing to do with those voters losing. even if they had won it wouldn't be legally viable long term to stop people traveling to commit acts that are legal in other countries.

    It is not possible to prevent all murders, nonetheless, the State is obliged to try, not just to give up.

    Likewise, the 8th obliged the State to try to protect the unborn, not to just give up and say oh well, what happens in England stays in England. Foreign abortions would have to have been criminalized with penalties like the PLDPA has for Irish abortions today, and that would serve as a deterrent.

    Except the prolifers lost that one and we added a "ha ha - only kidding" clause to the text the 8th put in our Constitution.


  • Options
    #596
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    end of the road wrote: »
    it's nothing to do with those voters losing. even if they had won it wouldn't be legally viable long term to stop people traveling to commit acts that are legal in other countries.

    The revisionism (or is it willful ignorance?) around the 8th and travel is breathtaking at this point. I'd understand if this was the first time it was discussed, but it's not; not by a long shot.

    If the referendum on the 13th had failed, then it would have been absolutely legal to use the 8th to prevent a woman traveling for an abortion overseas. The Supreme Court so in their judgment in the X Case. And when it comes to opinions on legal viability, theirs is the one that counts.


  • Options
    #597
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    If the referendum on the 13th had failed, then it would have been absolutely legal to use the 8th to prevent a woman traveling for an abortion overseas...
    So if the 13th amendment had failed, we'd need to change the 8th amendment now, is that what you are saying?

    Isn't that some sort of double negative, that implies everything worked out fine and dandy?


  • Options
    #598
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    recedite wrote: »
    So if the 13th amendment had failed, we'd need to change the 8th amendment now, is that what you are saying?

    Isn't that some sort of double negative, that implies everything worked out fine and dandy?

    I said exactly what I said, which is that without the 13th, it would have been legal to use the 8th to stop women having abortions abroad. I said this because the poster I was replying to was suggesting there would have been legal uncertainty about using the 8th in this manner.

    As for changes to the 8th, I think I've been unequivocal that I believe the 8th must go. That would be my opinion regardless of whether the referendum on the 13th amendment passed.


  • Options
    #599
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Not sure why you are talking about the 13th amendment then, except as some kind of strawman argument.


  • Options
    #600
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    recedite wrote: »
    Not sure why you are talking about the 13th amendment then, except as some kind of strawman argument.

    That's exactly what EOTR is doing, yes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #601
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    end of the road wrote: »
    i'm saying that as reprehensible as it is, we cannot stop people from going abroad to kill other human beings in a country where such is legal. it's very simple.
    Simple but untrue. We can stop people from travelling to Switzerland to assist a suicide, although that is perfectly legal there too so there is no reason, apart from the 13th, that we couldn't do the same with abortion if we wanted.

    and thankfully a rebalancing of rights isn't required, as the unborn's right to life is only equal to the mother. that changes where the mother's life or health is at risk, and in that situation the mother will be prioritized.

    Why would her health always be prioritized, if both have equal rights?


Advertisement