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

Ave Sodalis

Percy Judd wrote: »

I think I have caught you lot out on this point.
I have posted what stage of development a 12-week fetus is at regarding heartbeat, responding to stimulus, hands, feet, arms, legs, brain synapses, etc.
And yet you can't be straight and say you don't consider that a human life.
BUT you can't tell me at what stage of development the pregnancy becomes a human life.
Even Fred Swanson implying we shouldn't care about the life growing inside a woman, until childbirth occurs.

I don't consider a foetus at 12 weeks to be human life. I consider it to be potential human life. I consider it to be human life when it is capable of surviving outside of the womb. People are free to disagree with this.

Percy Judd wrote: »

If you want a load of pro-choice people posting and slapping each other on the back about how 'right on' they are for their pro-abortion views then why not just ban anyone with a pro-life opinion from the website?
I could equally refer to pro-abortion posters as 'tedious' but would prefer not to stoop to such lows.

Nobody is calling for pro-life to be banned, nor would they? Why would you even bring that up? Nobody is backslapping either like some weird cult. Pro-choice just so happens to agree with pro-choice. Pro-life just so happens to agree with pro-life.

SusieBlue

Sfc 1895 wrote: »

Just wondering if you feel the same about Heroin? Thousands of people take unsafe stuff every day yet we do not legalise it . I imagine a lot of people know somebody who is affected.
I actually support repealing the 8th however the above argument of "everybody's doing it so let's legalise" does not hold weight

It most certainly not a case of jumping on the bandwagon. We are denying 4 thousand women basic healthcare, forcing them to travel because our government won't provide services.
Its absolutely disgraceful that it has even taken this long for the referendum to happen.

Martina1991

Percy Judd wrote:

I think I have caught you lot out on this point. I have posted what stage of development a 12-week fetus is at regarding heartbeat, responding to stimulus, hands, feet, arms, legs, brain synapses, etc. And yet you can't be straight and say you don't consider that a human life. BUT you can't tell me at what stage of development the pregnancy becomes a human life. Even Fred Swanson implying we shouldn't care about the life growing inside a woman, until childbirth occurs.

You're looking so hard at the uterus, you can't see the human being attached to it.

A 12 week foetus cannot survive outside the womb. It depends on the woman's body. It is not a human life at that stage.

24 weeks has been observed to be around the earliest gestation for a baby to survive outside the womb. So your point about a pregnancy being terminated close to full gestation isn't right. The child would be delivered and handed over to the state as it is capable of surviving outside the woman's body.

SusieBlue

Percy Judd wrote: »

Just because you favour abortion and disagree with the pro-life side doesn't automatically imply their arguments are not informed.

No one favours abortion. We favour choice.

Percy Judd

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sentience is developed by the fetus some time between week 18 and 22.
It is at that point that I see it as a separate human being and deserving of its own human rights.

sentient

1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.

2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.

So if that's what defines a 'separate human being' to you, should we legalize killing of unconscious people? Comatose patients? People with brain damage who dip in and out of consciousness? Like the unborn they have potential for consciousness in the future. Can we kill them too?

Percy Judd

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No one favours abortion. We favour choice.

Choice to what?

Percy Judd

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's nearly 10,000 posts on this topic.
I have been on boards not even a week.
I just registered to ask my bank a question but this topic caught my eye.
If it's so simple, why don't you logically defeat my arguments instead of the lazy 'oh someone else has already defeated them, somewhere, I can't be bothered'.? Because you can't.

Martina1991

Percy Judd wrote:

So should we turn comatose patients life support off? There are lots of human lives which cannot survive without support. How is that a justification for killing them?

You're comparing a woman's body to life support.
A woman is not a soulless incubator.

January

Percy Judd wrote: »

sentient

1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.

2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.

So if that's what defines a 'separate human being' to you, should we legalize killing of unconsciousness people? Comatose patients? People with brain damage who dip in and out of consciousness? Like the unborn they have potential for consciousness in the future. Can we kill them too?

.... isn't that exactly what happened in the Charlie Gard case and currently happening with another young child in the UK? It happens with brain dead people every day.

PhoenixParker

Percy Judd wrote: »

So should we turn comatose patients life support off? There are lots of human lives which cannot survive without support. How is that a justification for killing them?

Life support is regularly switched off and life saving measures are not taken for those close to death so not a great example on your part.

For me, and many others there's also a vast difference between machine operated life support and a human being being forced to provide their body parts for another human being.

We don't even have compulsory organ donation when people die, that's only for pregnant women.

Ave Sodalis

Percy Judd wrote: »

sentient

1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.

2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.

So if that's what defines a 'separate human being' to you, should we legalize killing of unconsciousness people? Comatose patients? People with brain damage who dip in and out of consciousness? Like the unborn they have potential for consciousness in the future. Can we kill them too?

At least you consistently place the same value on a foetus as someone already born, leaving and breathing...

Percy Judd wrote: »

Choice to what?

Choice of what's best for them.

If we had a poll on whether or not people would want a system where there would never be a need for abortion again (not gonna happen, but lets pretend it's possible), what do you think they results will be?

SusieBlue

Percy Judd wrote: »

sentient

1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.

2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.

So if that's what defines a 'separate human being' to you, should we legalize killing of unconsciousness people? Comatose patients? People with brain damage who dip in and out of consciousness? Like the unborn they have potential for consciousness in the future. Can we kill them too?

No, no, no, no, and no. You asked when I consider it human, I said when it develops human traits such as sentience. There are many other human traits (such as respiration, personality, insight). Sentience is one of the FIRST to develop which is why I mentioned it.
We're talking about aborting unborn fetuses here, not giving grown adults the lethal injection. Presumably someone in a coma would have other human traits besides sentience, not that it matters, because its absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
Nice try with the deflecting, though.

SusieBlue

Percy Judd wrote: »

Choice to what?

A choice in making the best decision they possibly can in their own unique circumstances. If it ends in abortion, so be it. I trust and support women.

Loafing Oaf

Martina1991 wrote: »

A 12 week foetus cannot survive outside the womb. It depends on the woman's body. It is not a human life at that stage. .

I believe this is ultimately a subjective ethical judgement rather than a scientific fact. If the pro-lifer decides that a new 'human life' comes into existence at the point of fertilisation, I don't believe that position can be refuted by science.

Percy Judd

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No, no, no, no, and no. You asked when I consider it human, I said when it develops human traits such as sentience. There are many other human traits (such as respiration, personality, insight). Sentience is one of the FIRST to develop which is why I mentioned it.

You only mentioned sentience so that's what I argued with.
Again, respiration - if someone needs a respirator machine to breathe, are they not human?
If someone has no insight or personality due to mental disorders, are they not human?
These are very weak arguments to be honest.

Percy Judd

WhiteRoses wrote: »

A choice in making the best decision they possibly can in their own unique circumstances. If it ends in abortion, so be it. I trust and support women.

A choice to abort, yes.
Stop trying to hide behind terms like 'pro-choice'. It's not pro-choice of whether to get your haircut today or tomorrow, it's pro-choice of having the option to terminate a pregnancy. Nothing else.

Martina1991

Loafing Oaf wrote:

I believe this is ultimately a subjective ethical judgement rather than a scientific fact. If the pro-lifer decides that a new 'human life' comes into existence at the point of fertilisation, I don't believe that position can be refuted by science.

Well it is a fact that a 12 week foetus cannot survive on its own.

I believe it should not have the same rights as a living breathing human being who that is forced to carry a child against their will.

Percy Judd

Martina1991 wrote: »

Well it is a fact that a 12 week foetus cannot survive on its own.

So that's how we're defining human life now, whether it can survive on it's own or not?

Ave Sodalis

Percy Judd wrote: »

You only mentioned sentience so that's what I argued with.
Again, respiration - if someone needs a respirator machine to breathe, are they not human?
If someone has no insight or personality due to mental disorders, are they not human?
These are very weak arguments to be honest.

This could not be more of a strawman if you tried...

Percy Judd wrote: »

A choice to abort, yes.
Stop trying to hide behind terms like 'pro-choice'. It's not pro-choice of whether to get your haircut today or tomorrow, it's pro-choice of having the choice to terminate a pregnancy.

It's pro-choice when it allows the woman to decide what's best for her. You see, pro-choice does not really mind whether or not a woman continues with a pregnancy, as long as she's healthy because that's what choice is. If it were pro-abortion, there would be people out trying to force abortions. The pro-choice is about allowing the woman to choose. What would you call it?

SusieBlue

Percy Judd wrote: »

You only mentioned sentience so that's what I argued with.
Again, respiration - if someone needs a respirator machine to breathe, are they not human?
If someone has no insight or personality due to mental disorders, are they not human?
These are very weak arguments to be honest.

No, your rebuttals are whats weak. Of course they're still human. You are equating the value of a mentally ill person to that of a 12 week old fetus. This simply isn't the case.
Living people (regardless of their physical/mental condition) are more important than potential people. Its really that simple.

You asked when it becomes human, I said when it develops human traits. Its not rocket science.

Would you be happy for your wife or daughter to die for the sake of a less than 12 week old pregnancy? If not, why are you asking other people to do it?

Sofiztikated

Percy Judd wrote: »

it's pro-choice of having the option to terminate a pregnancy. Nothing else.

Well done.

I thought it was a referendum on choice of toothpaste.

gctest50

Percy Judd wrote: »

........ it's pro-choice of having the option to terminate a pregnancy. Nothing else.

And do you not trust a woman along with her chosen doctor to make the right choice ?

SusieBlue

Percy Judd wrote: »

A choice to abort, yes.
Stop trying to hide behind terms like 'pro-choice'. It's not pro-choice of whether to get your haircut today or tomorrow, it's pro-choice of having the option to terminate a pregnancy. Nothing else.

You just contradicted yourself there. A choice to abort, yes. Not a forced abortion. Or a coerced abortion. A voluntary one, should she want it.

Percy Judd

gctest50 wrote: »

And do you not trust a woman along with her chosen doctor to make the right choice ?

Not when it comes to taking what I consider a human life, no.

SusieBlue

Percy Judd wrote: »

Not when it comes to taking what I consider a human life, no.

Not everyone agrees. I don't believe pre 12 weeks constitutes to taking a life, at least not in the way you believe it to be.
Why should I live my life restricted by your morals and principles? Why are your opinions and feelings superior to mine?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Martina1991

Percy Judd wrote:

So that's how we're defining human life now, whether it can survive on it's own or not?

When it's depending on another human being for life yes.

Why do you think a foetus trumps the life of the woman?

Zerbini Blewitt

Another example of pro-life denying the reality of their stance:-

Niamh Smyth TD, FF on The Tonight Show last Thursday while defending keeping the 8th – in a reply to Matt Cooper said “I’m not saying that the women’s choice should be taken from them at <stopped mid-sentence>”.

People are entitled to their views regardless of their inability to back them up with reason or to engage at even the most rudimentary level of discussion.

But if one supports keeping the 8th then that is denying choice to women.

Is she embarrassed that she supports denying choice so her innovative solution to this is just to lie and say “I’m not denying choice”.

Imagine having to debase & degrade oneself like that on live television.

gctest50

Percy Judd wrote: »

I grew up in England and have seen the change in attitude between here and there that having abortion freely available causes.
.....

Percy Judd wrote: »

having abortion freely available causes.
.....

Any source for that ?

amdublin

Percy Judd wrote: »

No it doesn't. It shows how careless English women are about not using contraception and getting pregnant knowing they can easily abort if they decide to have unprotected sex and become pregnant.

"Easily" abort.

Easily!!!! There's nothing easy about abortion

The emotion aside, Its not like taking a couple of headaches pills. Even a medical abortion is not easy, it's varies from feeling like an extremely bad period to labour like pains over the course of time.

Have you ever had an extremely bad period? There's nothing easy about it.

And then there's the actual expelling passing of the embryo/blood/clots.

The bleeding can last from days (over a week) to months.

There is nothing easy about it.