The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

david75 wrote: »

They don’t seem to be aware of that

My services are available for a very competitive price

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.

....... wrote: »

So, having made a preposterous post about how abortion has not improved the life of any woman anywhere in the world, a post that attracted numerous rebuttals and posts that pointed out the complete fallacious nonsense in your statement - rather than actually address any of those posts, you simply ignored them all and dive bombed in with another nonsensical sound bite and then ran off again.

Seems to be a modus operandi of the prolifers. I can think of numerous posters who are posting in this manner.

Which numerous rebuttals? Did you give a rebuttal yourself because I didn’t notice it?

Turn voters off the idea of abortion?

Jesus Christ man everyone knows what abortion does, everyone just has a different understanding of what the procedure accomplishes, look at the bigger picture.

Don't talk to me about denying the right to life when you've the same mindset as those who dumped babies in a mass grave.

baylah17 wrote: »

Incorrect, none of those involved in the discussions on the 8th were hired by the Red C employee who hand picked members, that happened AFTER the CA had already dealth with the 8th.

Irrelevant, doubt has been cast on the selection process after the fact.
The 7 were caught in a spot check of the selection process..... rrrrrrrright :mad:
What's more likely to have happened is the spot check happened and someone who was supposed to be covering up, dropped the ball.
or
Someone blew the whistle <= Most likely. And everyone knows how we feel about whistle blowers in this country.

JDD wrote: »

I'm not saying your concerns are well founded, but it's not a completely uncommon view.

Presumably though, if the referendum is passed with the view that the legislation in its current form will be enacted, you will believe that it wasn't just a coincidence that assembly, committee and the majority of the population are of the same view?

I am genuinely hoping that the 8th is repealed.
However I believe the bible bashers/pasrish pumps will be out in force to ensure it isn't.
I also believe the referendum result will not match the opinion of the Assembly. (I'd like to be corrected on that, but I doubt I will be)

splinter65 wrote: »

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.

Awww look at the little zygote :pac: are you sure prefer Science to emotion?

splinter65 wrote: »

Science has said that life begins at conception.
Do you want to argue that?

I do not think people are arguing that so much as they are arguing what the implications of that are. Which, so far, seems to be NONE.

splinter65 wrote: »

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?

Not sure what you mean here but you appear to be talking about abortion done for gender reasons? Where people abort a fetus because it is female?

I would have two reactions to that.

The first is that this is not a problem of abortion. But a societal issue that a society is viewing women, or having daughters, as somehow inferior.

Blaming abortion for that is to miss the point because it would therefore be the symptom not the disease. The women you speak of are not absent because of abortion. They are absent because of the societal reasons those women or families sought abortion in the first place.

The second is a "so what". I think we need to distinguish between the right to do X, and the reasons people have for doing X. I might question the morality of the latter, but I do not think that impinges on the former.

For example I think everyone should have the right to eat fast food. If you decided you wanted to eat so much of it that you got so far that you could claim disability allowance.... I would question your moral reasons for eating fast food. I would NOT question your right to eat that food however.

splinter65 wrote: »

How can you be denied the right to life if you already have a life?

Ask the animal that provided the last meat based meal in your vicinity. Or the tree that supplied the last piece of paper that passed through your hands. Or the insects killed by the chemicals that treated the last vegetable cooked near you. Or the MILLIONS of lives you may have ended last time you took an antibiotic.

We deny that life has a right to life all the time on our planet. What the argument should be therefore, and precisely the argument you are not moving to make, is given all the entities that do not have a right to life..... what are the attributes upon which to presume to claim any other given entity has it.

The reason the anti choice brigade tend not to want to explore that question is clear. The attributes that result from that introspection are PRECISELY the ones the fetus being aborted lacks. Not just slightly lacks but ENTIRELY lacks, and many of their pre-requisites too.

So the question is simple. In a world where our species takes life ALL THE TIME, where is it you presume to be drawing the line and, more importantly, why.

splinter65 wrote: »

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.

That is a bit of spin from you really. The reality is that people tend to use any terms they want until the use of a false term in a given context results in implications that are harmful, untrue, or both.

When people call it a fetus for example they are not avoiding facts, not being pedantic...... rather they are avoiding the risk that implications can be made through the use of language that are entirely unwarranted implications. Implications that the anti choice side want made because it feeds their emotive non points in the absence of making any ACTUAL points.

splinter65 wrote: »

You do realize that no matter how many posts either of us make that neither of us are going to change any ones mind.

Speak for yourself. I have been told on and off thread, in public and in private, that the posts I make have an effect. In fact the only reason I still post on boards is due to those people telling me that. If I had ever gone 2 or 3 months without someone telling me directly my posts have educated them, changed their views, of otherwise deeply affected them...... I would have stopped posting a long time ago.

splinter65 wrote: »

Which numerous rebuttals? Did you give a rebuttal yourself because I didn’t notice it?

I assume mine would be among the ones he was referring to which, as he correctly noted, you decided to entirely ignore. Perhaps you are operating under the dynamic that if you ignore such rebuttals they magically cease to exist, or something like that?

splinter65 wrote: »

turn voters off the idea of abortion.

A weird distortion from you there but the fact is people on BOTH sides of the abortion issue want us to be off the idea of abortion. In that all of us want as few abortions as possible ever happening. Ideally none. We SHOULD be off the idea of abortion.

The difference, despite your us against them rhetoric, lies in the fact we do not think withholding the choice for abortion is the correct way to go about achieving that ideal.

Think of an analogy here. Heart Bypass Surgery. I wish it was never happening. I wish NO ONE ever had to get one. I support initiatives, such as education initiatives and healthy eating lifestyles, that reduce the numbers of people getting one. I am, to use your words, "turned off the idea of heart by pass surgery".

But I recognize not offering them is NOT the way to attain the ideal of no one ever having to have one. And the same is true of abortion.

captbarnacles wrote: »

Awww look at the little zygote

He has his Mammy's mitochondria!

robarmstrong wrote: »

Turn voters off the idea of abortion?

Jesus Christ man everyone knows what abortion does, everyone just has a different understanding of what the procedure accomplishes, look at the bigger picture.

Don't talk to me about denying the right to life when you've the same mindset as those who dumped babies in a mass grave.

I see you struggling badly to bring God into this. 2/10 . Must try harder graham!

Pedro K wrote: »

Are you going to answer this question?

Yes I am against IUDs . My buddy got pregnant twice on an IUD.

I didn't bring up God so you really aren't making sense.

Calm down? I'm as calm as you are tunnel-visioned mate.

Very.

Try something else?

Right answer me this.

You're in a burning building, you can save either a toddler or you can save these zygotes. One has to perish, pick one. Explain.

I'll wait while the cogs start turning buddy.