The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

applehunter wrote: »

Medical negligence happens in every country not just Ireland.

I hope you put those people straight.

Yes, but not to women like Savita Hallapanavar, who anywhere else would get a termination when they ask for it in her situation.

Sierra Eire wrote: »

Ireland will die if we keep bringing in immigrants while killing our babies. But aside from that, murdering babies is wrong anyway.

Bold claim, care to back it up with facts? Or is it just your opinion? You say it will die which implies that there is facts behind it.

It's not murder, it's not a baby, it's a 12 week fetus. Try harder.

Sierra Eire wrote: »

That's probably why a very infamous MALE globalist called GEORGE SOROS is funding the pro-abortion campaign. And he's also funding "refugee" programs.

There is a nefarious agenda behind this. I'm not saying you're in on it or support it, but there is an agenda to destroy the Irish people.

Take off the tinfoil hat.

Only agenda here is to give women the right to a choice over her own body.

Why are you going on about this weird vaguely racist sh!te when it's nothing to do with our discussion? Have you run out of material?

In the last thread I queried if there were any secular groups against abortion in Ireland and apparently there were none.

As a life long agnostic I feel strongly enough on the issue that I've set up one myself:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/232970957272673/

Here is my reasoning (prepare for a long read!):

As someone who is a life-long agnostic I had a search and couldn't find many Irish non-religious groups which are anti-abortion so I felt the need (as this is a matter I care enough about) to create one myself.

It is not a decision I came to lightly and I believe I have tried my best to understand the opposing view but as it is, I cannot support the expansion of abortion beyond what is currently permissible under our Constitution. To people who know me as a rational actor I would ask that they take the time to consider my reasoning below and comment on how they feel I may be correct or mistaken in my views.

My stance on maintaining the status quo (abortions allowed in the case of risk to the life of the mother, including through suicide i.e. the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013) stems from 2 primary reasons:

1. Arbitrariness to the affording of human rights to a foetus/baby.

This is the difficulty, for me, in drawing a line between unborn foetuses and human life - I understand that in the UK abortions can be carried out up to 24 weeks, in China apparently it's up to 10-12 weeks. In Ireland, the current legislative proposal (which could be tightened or loosened via future legislation if the 8th Amendment is repealed) is for abortions on demand up to 12 weeks.

How do we distinguish between a protected foetus and an unprotected one? 12 weeks and 1 second means legal protection from abortion (on demand) and 11 weeks 6 days 23 hours 59 mins 59 secs does not grant such legal protection? As a lawyer, I understand we attach arbitrary time limits and constraints on certain matters - drinking, driving, marriage etc. But the right to life seems to me to be something that arbitrary time limits should not apply to. No one is likely to die if I can't drive until I am 17 but here the question can be a matter of life and death or termination (if people feel I am using emotive language I apologise).

Of course a zygote on one extreme end of the spectrum does not seem to be instinctively "human" - we shed billions of cells naturally everyday. But how do we draw the line (never mind how do politicians decide how a line should be drawn)? I have thought for quite a while on this matter and still cannot get over the arbitrary life definition hurdle, a friend who intends to vote yes to repeal views it as a medical matter - i.e. survival outside womb and thus it is an arbitrary time line that shifts continuously as medical advancements continue. In their world one day abortions won't be possible when a zygote can be raised to "full" human in a medical facility, outside of the womb. At that point would people all agree that zygotes can be accorded the right to life?

As someone who vehemently opposes the death penalty (state sanctioned killing), but is pro-euthanasia (personal choice) I feel like I've taken a consistent position on this subject. However this is a view where I foresee I could have my opinion changed.

2. Fathers' rights

This is one branch where I do not foresee having my mind changed due to the current political climate. Back in my heady days as a law student I was infuriated to read The State (Nicolaou) v An Bord Uchtála - where the presiding judge felt it necessary to state "...it is rare for a natural father to take any interest in his (illegitimate) offspring..."

I believe society has changed enough that we now recognise the role that fathers (whether married or unmarried) should/need/want to take in the raising of a child.

Yet the abortion debate has been couched in the language of a woman's choice, with no regards to the feelings or wishes of the father, the person who has contributed 50% of the chromosomes of the foetus growing inside of the mother.

I cannot see the potential that legislators will consider fathers' rights to their unborn child in any future Irish legislation. As a prospective father, I cannot vote for the creation of a legal situation whereby I, as a father, am helpless in law to prevent my child from being aborted against my wishes.

This I understand is a matter of perspective - if you feel that a foetus is part of the bodily integrity of the woman and hence solely within the remit of her choice to do with as she pleases then you will have no issue with the above. But, I would ask that you consider an alternative perspective, that the foetus is not solely that of the woman's body - but is developing within, and independent to the bodily integrity of the woman herself. If you were to take this perspective, would it then be abhorrent to you that only one person has a say in deciding whether this pregnancy is continued or not?

Another example - under current law, a prospective mother can avail of an abortion where the threat of suicide poses a threat to the life of the mother (and hence also the foetus). But a prospective father, even where a threat of suicide exists, cannot, by law, ensure that a pregnancy is continued. Our society does not currently value the role of fathers during pregnancy as much as mothers, this I believe is a mistake, and future, more enlightened people will come around to this view also. I do however understand that the majority of Irish legislators do not feel this way and hence - for the protection my prospective fathers' rights (which would not be protected if the current proposed abortion legislation is passed) I cannot vote for the repeal of the 8th Amendment.

If you've read to the end of this very long comment I commend you - hopefully it puts forward a rational and wholly non-religious explanation of why someone would choose to retain the 8th Amendment. If you have any comments or views on the above I would be glad to hear from you - the benefits of non-dogmatic views is that they can be changed through reasoned argument - I hope this applies to both sets of voters in the upcoming referendum.

Purpletoes wrote: »

I had the first pro lifers on my door step yesterday evening. I asked where will they be if people are forced to continue to birth babies that are ill, dying, unwanted, born into abise, neglect, resentment, foster care etc etc etc... (as a result of the conversation moving to "free for all aborting") they said it can be easily remedied with more funding.
I suggested maybe they should be lobbying then for more funding to go to the children already born into these situations and supporting them and their mothers better.

I got blank faces in response and wished a good evening.


Its actually infuriating. If it turns out that this referendum doesnt pass, I think im going to seriously have to reconsider staying here to raise my children! (I am Irish, but feel like we live under a rock sometimes)

Don't go. We need all the help we can get to cast off this rock, slowly but surely we are dragging the troglodytes put of the darkness along with ourselves. The grass isn't really greener over there

Thirdfox wrote: »

In the last thread I queried if there were any secular groups against abortion in Ireland and apparently there were none.

As a life long agnostic I feel strongly enough on the issue that I've set up one myself:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/232970957272673/

Here is my reasoning (prepare for a long read!):

As someone who is a life-long agnostic I had a search and couldn't find many Irish non-religious groups which are anti-abortion so I felt the need (as this is a matter I care enough about) to create one myself.

It is not a decision I came to lightly and I believe I have tried my best to understand the opposing view but as it is, I cannot support the expansion of abortion beyond what is currently permissible under our Constitution. To people who know me as a rational actor I would ask that they take the time to consider my reasoning below and comment on how they feel I may be correct or mistaken in my views.

My stance on maintaining the status quo (abortions allowed in the case of risk to the life of the mother, including through suicide i.e. the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013) stems from 2 primary reasons:

1. Arbitrariness to the affording of human rights to a foetus/baby.

This is the difficulty, for me, in drawing a line between unborn foetuses and human life - I understand that in the UK abortions can be carried out up to 24 weeks, in China apparently it's up to 10-12 weeks. In Ireland, the current legislative proposal (which could be tightened or loosened via future legislation if the 8th Amendment is repealed) is for abortions on demand up to 12 weeks.

How do we distinguish between a protected foetus and an unprotected one? 12 weeks and 1 second means legal protection from abortion (on demand) and 11 weeks 6 days 23 hours 59 mins 59 secs does not grant such legal protection? As a lawyer, I understand we attach arbitrary time limits and constraints on certain matters - drinking, driving, marriage etc. But the right to life seems to me to be something that arbitrary time limits should not apply to. No one is likely to die if I can't drive until I am 17 but here the question can be a matter of life and death or termination (if people feel I am using emotive language I apologise).

Of course a zygote on one extreme end of the spectrum does not seem to be instinctively "human" - we shed billions of cells naturally everyday. But how do we draw the line (never mind how do politicians decide how a line should be drawn)? I have thought for quite a while on this matter and still cannot get over the arbitrary life definition hurdle, a friend who intends to vote yes to repeal views it as a medical matter - i.e. survival outside womb and thus it is an arbitrary time line that shifts continuously as medical advancements continue. In their world one day abortions won't be possible when a zygote can be raised to "full" human in a medical facility, outside of the womb. At that point would people all agree that zygotes can be accorded the right to life?

As someone who vehemently opposes the death penalty (state sanctioned killing), but is pro-euthanasia (personal choice) I feel like I've taken a consistent position on this subject. However this is a view where I foresee I could have my opinion changed.

2. Fathers' rights

This is one branch where I do not foresee having my mind changed due to the current political climate. Back in my heady days as a law student I was infuriated to read The State (Nicolaou) v An Bord Uchtála - where the presiding judge felt it necessary to state "...it is rare for a natural father to take any interest in his (illegitimate) offspring..."

I believe society has changed enough that we now recognise the role that fathers (whether married or unmarried) should/need/want to take in the raising of a child.

Yet the abortion debate has been couched in the language of a woman's choice, with no regards to the feelings or wishes of the father, the person who has contributed 50% of the chromosomes of the foetus growing inside of the mother.

I cannot see the potential that legislators will consider fathers' rights to their unborn child in any future Irish legislation. As a prospective father, I cannot vote for the creation of a legal situation whereby I, as a father, am helpless in law to prevent my child from being aborted against my wishes.

This I understand is a matter of perspective - if you feel that a foetus is part of the bodily integrity of the woman and hence solely within the remit of her choice to do with as she pleases then you will have no issue with the above. But, I would ask that you consider an alternative perspective, that the foetus is not solely that of the woman's body - but is developing within, and independent to the bodily integrity of the woman herself. If you were to take this perspective, would it then be abhorrent to you that only one person has a say in deciding whether this pregnancy is continued or not?

Another example - under current law, a prospective mother can avail of an abortion where the threat of suicide poses a threat to the life of the mother (and hence also the foetus). But a prospective father, even where a threat of suicide exists, cannot, by law, ensure that a pregnancy is continued. Our society does not currently value the role of fathers during pregnancy as much as mothers, this I believe is a mistake, and future, more enlightened people will come around to this view also. I do however understand that the majority of Irish legislators do not feel this way and hence - for the protection my prospective fathers' rights (which would not be protected if the current proposed abortion legislation is passed) I cannot vote for the repeal of the 8th Amendment.

If you've read to the end of this very long comment I commend you - hopefully it puts forward a rational and wholly non-religious explanation of why someone would choose to retain the 8th Amendment. If you have any comments or views on the above I would be glad to hear from you - the benefits of non-dogmatic views is that they can be changed through reasoned argument - I hope this applies to both sets of voters in the upcoming referendum.

I just want to quickly respond to your first point on arbitrariness. It is true that 12 weeks is an arbitrary line, as you said there is not a lot of difference between 12 weeks 1 day and 11 weeks 6 days. However as you also said, instinctively one can recognise that a fertilised ovum or a zygote is not "human" in the same way. So isnt it also then arbitrary to include this in the 8th as being the same as a 38 week old fetus who is ready to be born? There is still arbitrariness, it is just that the line is drawn at a different point. I have heard pro- lifers say that life begins at conception, if that is the case they should be against anything that prevents implantation. But there seems to be a level of arbitrariness to this also. So my position is this arbitrariness is not a reason to either repeal or keep the 8th. In terms of how late that abortion can be allowed, I would personally be in favour of making that decision based on the development of sentience of the foetus. I think that is where 12 weeks comes from, as it is absolutely guaranteed that the foetus will not be sentient at that point.

Ismisejack wrote: »

Pro-choice( pro-abortion) contingent here whole argument based on calling an unborn child a fetus, so as to dehumanize it and try make the murder sound less wrong cruel barbaric . Well I’ve yet to meet a woman expecting a fetus, it’s always a baby their expecting as that what it is, an unborn child. Don’t be fooled be the pro choice side, any abortion, no matter the circumstances behind it, kills an unborn child and Denys it it’s one life it will ever have

The bit in bold is precisely the point. It's a baby they're EXPECTING. When the pregnancy is wanted quite often tags are put on it inline with the emotional attachment. It doesn't make what is growing a baby yet though.

It's not meant to dehumanize, it's fact. Perhaps look at the growth of the fetus up to 12 weeks and you'll see it yourself the stages of development.