Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…2728303233…48

Comments

  • #872
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,703 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    J C wrote: »

    A fertilized egg and an adult Human are both Human Beings ... the reason it is ethically acceptable to kill an unborn child that is creating an imminent threat to the life of the mother ... is because it will die also, if the mother is allowed to die ... and therefore two lives will be lost. Being pro-life is being both pro the life and welfare of the mother as well as pro the life and welfare of the child.

    You need to accept that some people don't believe that. And they have a right not to believe that, just as you have a right to believe it.


  • #873
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    Abortion is the killing of vulnerable unborn Human Beings ...

    Let's dissect that theory.

    If it's true, then every medical professional who has ever carried out an abortion is a murderer.

    If it's true, any country that allows the termination of pregnancy has legally sanctioned murder.

    If it's true, every pregnant woman who has procured an abortion is guilty of murdering her own child.

    If it's true, every doctor who has provided follow-up care after a termination is an accessory after the fact.



    I don't doubt that there are people who are so wedded to their ideology that they can dismiss well-meaning medical professionals and desperate women as murderers, but that subjective belief is not objective fact.


  • #874
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Laws about cigarette smoke are about 'choice' as well. They protect people who choose to work indoors.
    You can still smoke to your heart's content if you choose to.
    Anti-smoking laws remove the choice to 'smoke if I want to' ... to prevent deaths and injury to Human Beings from inhaling other people's smoke.
    Similarly, anti-abortion laws remove the choice to 'abort if I want to' ... to prevent the deaths of unborn Human Beings
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    People have regrets about many things. The choice NOT to have an abortion is NOT being removed.
    ... so should we repeal anti-drink driving laws, on the basis that the choice 'to not drink and drive is not being removed'?


  • #875
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You need to accept that some people don't believe that. And they have a right not to believe that, just as you have a right to believe it.
    Fair point ... people have the right to believe whatever they want ... but laws are required to ensure that Human lives are protected.


  • #876
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,750 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You need to accept that some people don't believe that. And they have a right not to believe that, just as you have a right to believe it.

    anyone has the right to believe whatever they like. however, when they act on those beliefs,, that is when problems may be caused, and that is why sometimes people are prohibited by laws from acting on their beliefs.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #877
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Let's dissect that theory.

    If it's true, then every medical professional who has ever carried out an abortion is a murderer.
    They aren't a murderer, because the law doesn't define abortion as murder.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If it's true, any country that allows the termination of pregnancy has legally sanctioned murder.
    No, they have legally sanctioned the killing of unborn Human Beings.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If it's true, every pregnant woman who has procured an abortion is guilty of murdering her own child.
    No, she has objectively aborted or killed her unborn child.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If it's true, every doctor who has provided follow-up care after a termination is an accessory after the fact.
    No, they are rendering necessary medical care.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I don't doubt that there are people who are so wedded to their ideology that they can dismiss well-meaning medical professionals and desperate women as murderers, but that subjective belief is not objective fact.
    Neither are murderers, like I have pointed out above.
    Women hurt by abortion have my absolute sympathy.

    Doctors who act in the best interests of the mother (and the unborn child as far as practicable) have my admiration ... even if this results in the death of the unborn child.


  • #878
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,703 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    J C wrote: »
    Anti-smoking laws remove the choice to 'smoke if I want to' ... to prevent deaths and injury to Human Beings from inhaling other people's smoke.
    Similarly, anti-abortion laws remove the choice to 'abort if I want to' ... to prevent the deaths of unborn Human Beings

    They are not anti smoking laws, they are laws to protect people who choose to work in certain environments.
    And they are not in the constitution.
    ... so should we repeal anti-drink driving laws, on the basis that the choice 'to not drink and drive is not being removed'?

    Nobody will be forced to have an abortion, you will have your choice NOT to have one.


  • #879
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,703 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    J C wrote: »
    Fair point ... people have the right to believe whatever they want ... but laws are required to ensure that Human lives are protected.

    So your definition or science defines what code everyone else has to live by.

    The referendum in a nutshell.


  • #880
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,703 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    end of the road wrote: »
    anyone has the right to believe whatever they like. however, when they act on those beliefs,, that is when problems may be caused, and that is why sometimes people are prohibited by laws from acting on their beliefs.

    Exactly. Women are being criminalised because others have different morals and scientific beliefs.


  • #881
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    They are not anti smoking laws, they are laws to protect people who choose to work in certain environments.
    And they are not in the constitution.
    They prevent smokers exercising their 'choice' to smoke whenever they like ... to prevent injury and death to people from exercising their 'choice' to smoke.
    Anti-abortion laws similarly prevent mothers exercising their 'choice' to abort whenever they like ... to prevent injury and death to their unborn child from exercising their 'choice' to abort.
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Nobody will be forced to have an abortion, you will have your choice NOT to have one.
    ... so should we repeal the anti-drink driving laws because everybody will still have their choice to NOT drink and drive?


  • Advertisement
  • #882
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    Fair point ... people have the right to believe whatever they want ... but laws are required to ensure that Human lives are protected.

    FrancieBrady
    So your definition or science defines what code everyone else has to live by.

    The referendum in a nutshell.
    I said that, whatever one's personal beliefs, laws are required to ensure that Human lives are protected.
    Do you disagree with that?


  • #883
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,703 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    J C wrote: »
    I said that, whatever one's personal beliefs, laws are required to ensure that Human lives are protected.
    Do you disagree with that?

    No I don't.

    I disagree and many others do too what a 'human being' is though. And there is the rub.

    *why do you capitalise human? It doesn't become more emotive just because you capitalise it.


  • #884
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    They aren't a murderer, because the law doesn't define abortion as murder.

    That, frankly, is a weaselly argument. You're talking about people who, by the definitions you're putting forward, are wilfully killing human beings. So, no: the law doesn't define them as murderers, but - if you're being consistent - you should.

    So, get off the fence: is it your belief that a doctor who carries out an abortion is a murderer?


  • #885
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,703 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    J C wrote: »
    They prevent smokers exercising their 'choice' to smoke whenever they like ... to prevent injury and death to people from exercising their 'choice' to smoke.
    Anti-abortion laws similarly prevent mothers exercising their 'choice' to abort whenever they like ... to prevent injury and death to their unborn child from exercising their 'choice' to abort.

    ... so should we repeal the anti-drink driving laws because everybody will still have their choice to NOT drink and drive?

    They are not 'anti' laws.
    You can still drink and you can still smoke legally.

    Smoking kills human beings as does drink. The logic of your argument is that they should be completely prohibited.
    But people are allowed to choose to smoke and choose to drink.


  • #886
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,750 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Nobody will be forced to have an abortion, you will have your choice NOT to have one.

    nobody would be forced to commit any act if we removed the laws that prohibit such an act from being caried out within the state. however, we won't be going around removing all laws because laws exist to prevent people from carying out acts which would go against the smooth functioning of society. this is why your statement doesn't work in my view.
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Exactly. Women are being criminalised because others have different morals and scientific beliefs.

    i would suggest that any law that is implemented in the aim to try and prevent people carying out acts that would bring harm upon others would have been implemented based to an extent or in full on a moral belief.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #887
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,703 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    end of the road wrote: »
    nobody would be forced to commit any act if we removed the laws that prohibit such an act from being caried out within the state. however, we won't be going around removing all laws because laws exist to prevent people from carying out acts which would go against the smooth functioning of society. this is why your statement doesn't work in my view.



    i would suggest that any law that is implemented in the aim to try and prevent people carying out acts that would bring harm upon others would have been implemented based to an extent or in full on a moral belief.

    And it is time to change that 'moral' belief. Like we changed it on divorce and SSM.


  • #888
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    And it is time to change that 'moral' belief. Like we changed it on divorce and SSM.
    ... there is no comparison with SSM ... which was an equality affirming amendment ... while the repeal of the 8th is an equality destroying proposition.

    ... I'm very happy with the 'moral' belief that we shouldn't kill other Human Beings.


  • #889
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    ... I'm very happy with the 'moral' belief that we shouldn't kill other Human Beings.

    Me too. But a blastocyst isn't a human being.


  • #890
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,703 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    J C wrote: »
    ... there is no comparison with SSM ... which was an equality affirming amendment ... while the repeal of the 8th is an equality destroying proposition.

    ... I'm very happy with the 'moral' belief that we shouldn't kill other Human Beings.

    And repealing the 8th will in no way hinder you in not killing other and human beings.

    * you never explained why you capitalise human beings?


  • #891
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    No I don't.

    I disagree and many others do too what a 'human being' is though. And there is the rub.
    ... what is a human being, in your opinion ?


  • Advertisement
  • #892
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    And repealing the 8th will in no way hinder you in not killing other and human beings.
    Equally, repealing the drink driving laws won't hinder anybody in not drinking and driving ... but it would increase the death rates on our roads, by legally approving drink driving.

    Similarly, repealing the 8th, would increase the death rate among unborn children, by legally approving their killing.


  • #893
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,703 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    J C wrote: »
    ... what is a human being, in your opinion ?

    We are not talking about 'my' opinion. Personally, I see no situation where I would advise or favour abortion.

    I am telling you that there are numerous people living, working and contributing to this country who do not believe the same things you do or that I do.
    It is called 'modern society'.

    You wish to have your definition/code imposed on them. That is untenable and needs to be repealed.


  • #894
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Me too. But a blastocyst isn't a human being.
    If its a human blastocyst ... it's a human being i.e. an individual of the species Homo sapiens.


  • #895
    MayoSalmon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,483 ✭✭✭MayoSalmon


    oscarBravo wrote:
    Me too. But a blastocyst isn't a human being.


    Certainly isn't a blastocyst at 10 weeks though is it?!


  • #896
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,703 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    J C wrote: »
    Equally, repealing the drink driving laws wont hinder anybody in not drinking and driving ... but it would increase the death rates on our roads.

    Similarly, repealing the 8th, would increase the death rate among unborn children.

    Your bringing up legislation to do with smoking in the workplace and drink driving highlights a certain hypocrisy.

    Smoking and drinking kills and has killed thousands of people or as you cal them 'Human Beings'.

    Where is the church/pro life people on this issue? Ban smoking and ban drinking.


  • #897
    MayoSalmon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,483 ✭✭✭MayoSalmon


    FrancieBrady wrote:
    Where is the church/pro life people on this issue? Ban smoking and ban drinking.


    Smoking will be banned in the next 50 years it's already banned in some countries.

    Drink well I'll give that another 200 years..


  • #898
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    We are not talking about 'my' opinion. Personally, I see no situation where I would advise or favour abortion.
    ... Is there any other category of killing of human beings that you personally wouldn't advise or favour ... but you would allow other people to engage in?
    ... and if not, why not?
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I am telling you that there are numerous people living, working and contributing to this country who do not believe the same things you do or that I do.
    It is called 'modern society'.

    You wish to have your definition/code imposed on them. That is untenable and needs to be repealed.
    There are many hard-working people who like to have a few pints and drive home afterwards ... do you think they should be allowed exercise their preferences on this?
    If not, why not?


  • #899
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,750 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    We are not talking about 'my' opinion. Personally, I see no situation where I would advise or favour abortion.

    I am telling you that there are numerous people living, working and contributing to this country who do not believe the same things you do or that I do.
    It is called 'modern society'.

    You wish to have your definition/code imposed on them. That is untenable and needs to be repealed.

    by that metric, we would need to repeal all of the laws, given that they are imposing someone's moral definition/code upon someone else, who may not agree with that moral definition/code. to me, and i'd suspect many others, that wouldn't be viable or the right thing to do.
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Your bringing up legislation to do with smoking in the workplace and drink driving highlights a certain hypocrisy.

    Smoking and drinking kills and has killed thousands of people or as you cal them 'Human Beings'.

    Where is the church/pro life people on this issue? Ban smoking and ban drinking.

    members of the church, pro-life and pro-choice will be involved in many different and varied issues, while many others have not and will not be involved in anything once this campaign is over. so i think it's unfair to specifically single out pro-life and the church in relation to their involvement or lack of in relation to other issues.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #900
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,703 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    end of the road wrote: »
    by that metric, we would need to repeal all of the laws, given that they are imposing someone's moral definition/code upon someone else, who may not agree with that moral definition/code. to me, and i'd suspect many others, that wouldn't be viable or the right thing to do.



    members of the church, pro-life and pro-choice will be involved in many different and varied issues, while many others have not and will not be involved in anything once this campaign is over. so i think it's unfair to specifically single out pro-life and the church in relation to their involvement or lack of in relation to other issues.

    If 'Human Beings' are so sacrosanct where are the campaigns to ban smoking and drinking?

    Because the state says 'Human Beings' and ordinary humans beings are free to indulge in these things that kill thousands every year. Not to mention inhibit 'Human Beings' in the womb.


  • Advertisement
  • #901
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    If 'Human Beings' are so sacrosanct where are the campaigns to ban smoking and drinking?

    Because the state says 'Human Beings' and ordinary humans beings are free to indulge in these things that kill thousands every year. Not to mention inhibit 'Human Beings' in the womb.
    There is a government policy to have a tobacco free Ireland by 2025.
    http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/TobaccoFreeIreland.pdf

    There are also policies for greater control and a reduction in alcohol consumption ... which strikes the right balance IMO ... because responsible alcohol consumption has no adverse effects.


Advertisement