The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

JDD wrote: »

I'll bite.

I believe a zygote is a human being. My definition of human being is any combination of human cells that results from a female and male reproductive cells bonding together.

I don't believe being scientifically classified as a human being automatically bestows upon you the right to life. So there you go.

How can you be denied the right to life if you already have a life? The little zygote is doubling and trebling itself from the second it’s created, if you kill it then you are taking its life away, that’s what I believe.
The use of language around the pro repeal argument is fascinating to me.
The obsession with using pedantry and medical terms imo is a desperate attempt to avoid plain facts which I suspect you fear will turn voters off the idea of abortion.
Also “I’ll bite” . If your tired of this thread or bored or irritated with pro life posters offering opinions, why don’t you unfollow the thread for a while and do something else?
You do realize that no matter how many posts either of us make that neither of us are going to change any ones mind.
You seem to be of the opinion that you are manning some kind of pro repeal barricade.
Your not. It’s just a pointless argument between anonymous strangers on a message board.

.......

This post has been deleted.

JDD wrote: »

Yep. And the constitution goes on to say that all citizens "unless disqualified by law" are allowed to vote in Dail elections. Citizens who do not ordinarily reside in Ireland are disqualified by law.

What an absolute waste of the High Court's time, when there are so many appeals and criminal cases in a backlog waiting to be heard. Honest to God.

I wonder is it the usual lone whackball has hired them or is it a little more well funded? And how?

JDD

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Per the Constitution:
Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann shall have the right to vote at a Referendum.

Next case.

Yep. And the constitution goes on to say that all citizens "unless disqualified by law" are allowed to vote in Dail elections. Citizens who do not ordinarily reside in Ireland are disqualified by law.

What an absolute waste of the High Court's time, when there are so many appeals and criminal cases in a backlog waiting to be heard. Honest to God.

Edward M wrote: »

I posted that last night, do you know who is putting in the challenge, it doesent name them in either report, just the solicitors.
Interesting to see Madden and Finnucane, because of that I thought it might actually be SF?

I’ll keep an eye on that.

david75 wrote: »

They don’t seem to be aware of that

My services are available for a very competitive price

Edward M

david75 wrote: »

Grasping at straws seems to be a thing with the anti choice brigade

Legal challenge lodged to allow people in North vote in Eighth Amendment referendum

http://www.thejournal.ie/judicial-review-8th-amendment-referendum-3902154-Mar2018/?utm_source=shortlink

I posted that last night, do you know who is putting in the challenge, it doesent name them in either report, just the solicitors.
Interesting to see Madden and Finnucane, because of that I thought it might actually be SF?

NuMarvel wrote: »

This was mentioned earlier (or maybe it was a different thread, they're all merging for me at this point!), but in any case, I can't see how they think this will succeed.

The Constitution says people who can vote in Dáil elections can vote in referendums. And the key criteria for being able to vote in Dáil elections is that you live in a Dáil constituency. Last time I checked, there were no Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland.

They don’t seem to be aware of that

david75 wrote: »

Grasping at straws seems to be a thing with the anti choice brigade

Legal challenge lodged to allow people in North vote in Eighth Amendment referendum

http://www.thejournal.ie/judicial-review-8th-amendment-referendum-3902154-Mar2018/?utm_source=shortlink

This was mentioned earlier (or maybe it was a different thread, they're all merging for me at this point!), but in any case, I can't see how they think this will succeed.

The Constitution says people who can vote in Dáil elections can vote in referendums. And the key criteria for being able to vote in Dáil elections is that you live in a Dáil constituency. Last time I checked, there were no Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Per the Constitution:
Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann shall have the right to vote at a Referendum.

Next case.

There were similar attempts with marriage equality too I think.

david75 wrote: »

Grasping at straws seems to be a thing with the anti choice brigade

Legal challenge lodged to allow people in North vote in Eighth Amendment referendum

http://www.thejournal.ie/judicial-review-8th-amendment-referendum-3902154-Mar2018/?utm_source=shortlink

Per the Constitution:
Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann shall have the right to vote at a Referendum.

Next case.

Grasping at straws seems to be a thing with the anti choice brigade

Legal challenge lodged to allow people in North vote in Eighth Amendment referendum

http://www.thejournal.ie/judicial-review-8th-amendment-referendum-3902154-Mar2018/?utm_source=shortlink

splinter65 wrote: »

I prefer science to the law.

I don't see lads in white coats at the pro-life rallies for some reason.

Do you know who DOES believes what you believe about zygotes?

The Roman Catholic Church.

JDD

Pedro K wrote: »

Are you against progestin, IUD, or other methods of contraception whose mechanism stops implantation?

And leading on from that, are you against IVF?

splinter65 wrote: »

Biologically human life begins at conception. As much as you would like it to be otherwise.
A human being with its own DNA seperate to its parents.
I prefer science to the law.

We're talking about a constitutional referendum so this is about law, not science. If you want to talk about this as a purely scientific matter, then maybe try the Health Sciences forum.

If you want to use this as an argument for not changing our laws, then you're going to have to address the fact that the law is already different from what you're saying, and will continue to be if the people vote No in the referendum.

Pedro K

splinter65 wrote: »

Biologically human life begins at conception. As much as you would like it to be otherwise.
A human being with its own DNA seperate to its parents.
I prefer science to the law.

Are you against progestin, IUD, or other methods of contraception whose mechanism stops implantation?

robarmstrong

NuMarvel wrote: »

Whatever about when life beings, the right to life doesn't being at conception. And no pro lifer has ever asked for the constitution to be changed to say that it does.

What's more, the people voted to put the freedoms to travel and to access information about abortion service abroad above the unborn's right to life. So regardless of when the right to life begins, we've already decided that a woman's freedoms and rights, beyond her right to life, override the unborn's right to life. And again, no pro lifer has ever asked for the constitution to be changed to reverse that position.

So why then shouldn't we grant the same status to a woman's right to bodily autonomy, even if it's just early on in the pregnancy. If we've already decided that we think a woman should be able to access abortion elsewhere, what is the reason for denying her the same options here?

That's a question I've asked more than once on this or other threads, and to date, not a single "pro life" supporter has been able to rationally answer it.

Because the majority of them cling to an outdated ideology passed down to them by people who turned a blind eye to atrocities committed by the establishment that's so staunchly against abortion in the first place.

Pro-lifers never respond to my own comments about how I'm against abortion but I want it brought in so that the generation after me doesn't have to suffer the shame and humiliation that thousands of women before them suffered.

Let's weigh it up - abortion is wrong yeah, but oppressing the rights of people who already are living, existing and in this world is a lot more wrong I think.

Like I said before I would fully support and care for my daughter if she ever had to go through an abortion, I'd be failing as a father by suppressing her the right to choose what can or cannot happen to her own body, nobody else has the right to say that other than her, and I want her to have that right a lot more than I want the 8th to be saved.

Bannasidhe

JDD wrote: »

I'll bite.

I don't believe being scientifically classified as a human being automatically bestows upon you the right to life. So there you go.

Of course it does - that's why we have free universal healthcare and banned wars... oh...wait...

JDD

splinter65 wrote: »

Human life begins at conception.
You know that.

I'll bite.

I believe a zygote is a human being. My definition of human being is any combination of human cells that results from a female and male reproductive cells bonding together.

I don't believe being scientifically classified as a human being automatically bestows upon you the right to life. So there you go.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not legally, it doesn't.

Biologically human life begins at conception. As much as you would like it to be otherwise.
A human being with its own DNA seperate to its parents.
I prefer science to the law.

Bannasidhe

splinter65 wrote: »

Science has said that life begins at conception.
Do you want to argue that?
If that zygote is not a human being then what is it?
Right now in China 120 boys are born for every 100 girls. That’s a lot of women who aren’t here because of abortion.
How is that good for women?

'Life' in the narrowest possible definition of the word- it exists, without any knowledge that it exists and nature aborts around 1 in 4 of those zygotes. I await your campaign to have those recognised as deaths.

It it genetically human. But if you believe being human is simply a matter of the composition of one's DNA and all that other stuff about ability to live without the need to gain ones nutrients/oxygen etc from another human being, awareness of one's own existence, or any of the other stuff that defines us as a species - you know, that whole Homo Sapiens Sapiens stuff - then it would seem you see us as on a par with a amoeba. Which is after all a life.

It's a bit rich to talk about China given Ireland's woeful track record on protecting women and children. I'm sure the 500 children buried in Tuam gave thanks everyday they were born in Ireland not aborted in China. Classic whataboutery in lieu of an actual argument.

I look forward to seeing you picket your local airport to save lives - seeing as you are so concerned about the global abortion situation.

splinter65 wrote: »

Science has said that life begins at conception.
Do you want to argue that?
If that zygote is not a human being then what is it?

Whatever about when life beings, the right to life doesn't being at conception. And no pro lifer has ever asked for the constitution to be changed to say that it does.

What's more, the people voted to put the freedoms to travel and to access information about abortion service abroad above the unborn's right to life. So regardless of when the right to life begins, we've already decided that a woman's freedoms and rights, beyond her right to life, can override the unborn's right to life. And again, no pro lifer has ever asked for the constitution to be changed to reverse that position.

So why then shouldn't we grant the same status to a woman's right to bodily autonomy, even if it's just early on in the pregnancy. If we've already decided that we think a woman should be able to access abortion elsewhere, what is the reason for denying her the same options here?

That's a question I've asked more than once on this or other threads, and to date, not a single "pro life" supporter has been able to rationally answer it.

baylah17

splinter65 wrote: »

Human life begins at conception.
You know that.

Eh , NO!
Not even if the Catechism says so Father
You see there is where you fail as you are starting off with a silly fallacy

baylah17 wrote: »

Your post is pure childish drivel.

If my post isn’t factual then all you have to do is point out the non facts. It should be easy.

splinter65 wrote: »

Human life begins at conception. You know that.

Not legally, it doesn't.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Last time I checked, Science said life began at least 4 billion years ago.

Human life begins at conception.
You know that.

baylah17

splinter65 wrote: »

my post is factual and you can’t think of anything else to do except sneer?

Your post is pure childish drivel.

baylah17 wrote: »

That post is just sad, pure emotional hyperbole, all that is missing is the violins in the background.
If thats the best that the anti-choice can offer then they should quit now!

Will I wait for you to counter with an argument to disprove what I posted or will we agree now that my post is factual and you can’t think of anything else to do except sneer?

baylah17

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Last time I checked, Science said life began at least 4 billion years ago.

But But But ....what about Adam and Eve and the Bible, its not 4 million years old.:rolleyes: