The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

horseburger · 13-04-2018 05:30PM

Madscientist30 wrote: »

So then do you consider abortion to meet the definition of murder?

It is the deliberate ending of a human life. Would you accept that abortion is the deliberate ending of a human life?

here is an interesting discussion where a campaigner for repeal is reluctant to concede that abortion is the deliberate ending of a human life:

amdublin · 13-04-2018 05:31PM

Hey just my take guys. Let horseburger vote whatever way he or she wants.

Don't waste your energy discussing with someone who is not for turning.

I'm going out canvassing for the first time tomorrow. I'm hoping to speak with people who are undecided and open to considering the option of repealing the 8th.

seamus · 13-04-2018 05:32PM

horseburger wrote: »

I never made any judgement about cases of miscarriage. I included a link to an item that details that it is an unfortunate natural occurrence.

So is SIDS.

That doesn't answer my question.

You would, like every reasonable person, support laws which require that the sudden death of every person is thoroughly investigated and explained. The vast majority of deaths are "unfortunate natural occurrences", but it would be remiss of us as a society to not ensure that they're all accounted for.

But when it comes to miscarriages, you seem happy to just accept that, "Ah sure, it happens". Why is that? Why do you not feel that foetal deaths are deserving of the same basic due diligence that other deaths are?

Could it be the very simple fact that you do not value a foetus as much as a born person, no matter how much you claim the opposite?

gctest50 · 13-04-2018 05:33PM

BabysCoffee wrote: »

I read some of the reasons why donations are being made to Together for Yes to my mother who is not internet savy (and also had forgotten her glasses when I met her for coffee today).

This was the one that I broke down in tears to as I read aloud:

That must go on every single month that

Ave Sodalis · 13-04-2018 05:33PM

horseburger wrote: »

What question did you ask?

These ones:

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Even if the miscarriage was caused by drink etc.? It's not an abortion if it was accidental.

Do you mind answering the rest of those questions? And the post before that?

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I know this has been asked a million times but if this was true, why isn't a miscarriage manslaughter? Why isn't drinking when pregnant considering negligence. Why is travelling for an abortion allowed?

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Alters their routine and financial circumstances, yes. They aren't rights though. As it stands, the 8th means a woman is not given the right to be free from suffering. The woman is not given the right to life, despite what the 2013 Act says. The woman is not given the right to medical treatment. They are not given the right to bodily autonomy.

Heck, so long as the 8th is in place, even the foetus and subsequent baby are okay to suffer and die a preventable and painful death because, regardless of whether or not you agree with abortion for FFA, the 8th prevents it.

The funny (not really) thing is is that if the child needs an organ donation or a blood donation to save its life after it's born, you cannot take the organ or blood from the mother without her permission. Even if the baby will die without it.

Are you telling me you'd be quite happy to stand in front of Susan Hodger's family, in front of Savita Halappanavar's family, in front of Anne Lovett's family... and tell them that their family member would have lost rights when the baby was born anyway so don't worry about them.

horseburger · 13-04-2018 05:36PM

seamus wrote: »

So is SIDS.

That doesn't answer my question.

You would, like every reasonable person, support laws which require that the sudden death of every person is thoroughly investigated and explained. The vast majority of deaths are "unfortunate natural occurrences", but it would be remiss of us as a society to not ensure that they're all accounted for.

But when it comes to miscarriages, you seem happy to just accept that, "Ah sure, it happens". Why is that? Why do you not feel that foetal deaths are deserving of the same basic due diligence that other deaths are?

Could it be the very simple fact that you do not value a foetus as much as a born person, no matter how much you claim the opposite?

Isn't the deliberate procedure of abortion, different to a miscarriage?

Hannibal_Smith · 13-04-2018 05:40PM

kylith wrote: »

So was that miscarriage I had a few years ago, but no-one gets worked up about that.

Repealing the 8th allows people to make their own decision about what stage of development they feel worthy of sustaining.

This is the point I was trying to make in another thread on the Christian forum. People have been brainwashed so much into believing abortion is killing babies that that's what they think is being aborted at 12 weeks.

As I said elsewhere, if a foetus up to 12 weeks is has the same rights as the mother and a living baby, then why are their deaths not marked by society in Anyway? Why is there no funeral? And why does all medical care start at 12 weeks? Surely if it was a living being it's life should be monitored from day 1 by the medical professionals?

It's because everyone knows that a 12 week foetus is not the same as a living person. And is never treated as the same in any way, no one gives a hoot about it, until abortion is mentioned.

Hannibal_Smith · 13-04-2018 05:43PM

horseburger wrote: »

I never made any judgement about cases of miscarriage. I included a link to an item that details that it is an unfortunate natural occurrence.

But if a baby suddenly dies, or an adult suddenly dies, there is a post mortem, maybe an inquest, some sort of investigation into what happened. If a 12 week foetus is of same value, why are there no calls for inquests and post mortems?

horseburger · 13-04-2018 05:45PM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

These ones:

I haven't made any judgement about occurrences of miscarriage.

I didn't make any comment justifying not making abortion available.

I asked how abortion can be justified on the basis that abortion involves the deliberate ending of a human life.

The first post I responded to, suggested that the foetus is not a living person.

I asked why that justifies ending that life, considering that the foetus is human and will otherwise undergo human development, if it is not aborted.

Madscientist30 · 13-04-2018 05:46PM

horseburger wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In biological terms I 100% agree with when YOU say it begins.

In terms of philosophy, ethics, morality, rights, personhood and so forth I do not know 100% when it begins but I do not think it begins until the faculty of consciousness and sentience comes on line.

At 12 weeks not only is it not online, it has not even been BUILT yet. This is human it is not a Human. Please do learn the difference for us. And stop feigning ignorance of something I have explained to you four times in as many posts.

Isn't the main issue that no matter at what stage an abortion takes place, it is fundamentally the ending of a human life, where someone else has decided to end another human life?

I often hear the argument that it is more acceptable to carry out an abortion when pain is not felt.

It was asked by participants in the Citizens Assembly.

Why is there a concern about pain being felt, when the abortion procedure results in the ending of life.

Ending life is much more severe than inflicting pain.

So you think that only life is important, and not the quality of that life, the experience that the living person has, the pain, the suffering? Do you feel that the world would be a better place if all conceived "humans" are forced into the world against the will of the women carrying them?

Madscientist30 · 13-04-2018 05:46PM

horseburger wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In biological terms I 100% agree with when YOU say it begins.

In terms of philosophy, ethics, morality, rights, personhood and so forth I do not know 100% when it begins but I do not think it begins until the faculty of consciousness and sentience comes on line.

At 12 weeks not only is it not online, it has not even been BUILT yet. This is human it is not a Human. Please do learn the difference for us. And stop feigning ignorance of something I have explained to you four times in as many posts.

Isn't the main issue that no matter at what stage an abortion takes place, it is fundamentally the ending of a human life, where someone else has decided to end another human life?

I often hear the argument that it is more acceptable to carry out an abortion when pain is not felt.

It was asked by participants in the Citizens Assembly.

Why is there a concern about pain being felt, when the abortion procedure results in the ending of life.

Ending life is much more severe than inflicting pain.

So you think that only life is important, and not the quality of that life, the experience that the living person has, the pain, the suffering? Do you feel that the world would be a better place if all conceived "humans" are forced into the world against the will of the women carrying them?

kylith · 13-04-2018 05:53PM

horseburger wrote: »

I haven't made any judgement about occurrences of miscarriage.

I didn't make any comment justifying not making abortion available.

I asked how abortion can be justified on the basis that abortion involves the deliberate ending of a human life.

The first post I responded to, suggested that the foetus is not a living person.

I asked why that justifies ending that life, considering that the foetus is human and will otherwise undergo human development, if it is not aborted.

If your sister said to you that she had had a miscarriage at 10 weeks would you feel tha same as if she said her 2month old baby had died?

Spanish Eyes · 13-04-2018 05:53PM

If only those who are pro birth at any cost put half their energies into insisting on the guaranteed life long care of those who ARE born with or without disabilities, that would be so great.

Seems all the pro birth evangelism ends once the child is born. But that is success for that cohort. That's my thinking on the matter.

Oh, along with the fact that it is a private matter between the pregnant woman and her medical advisers or internet pill provider too. But I suppose some pro birth people just cannot trust women at all to make their own decisions. Control and control more.

horseburger · 13-04-2018 05:54PM

Madscientist30 wrote: »

So you think that only life is important, and not the quality of that life, the experience that the living person has, the pain, the suffering? Do you feel that the world would be a better place if all conceived "humans" are forced into the world against the will of the women carrying them?

I did not state what you are implying.

I expressed a concern that if there is a diagnosis of an illness, or unfortunate condition, that it can't be stated with certainty how long a life will last, unless the pregnancy continues through to birth.

I said that if an abortion is carried out, it will never be known how long the child would have lived, after birth.

Would you accept that, as a valid concern, just as valid as concerns about the quality of life, of the parents and the baby, if the baby lives for an amount of time after being born?

erica74 · 13-04-2018 05:56PM

I really hate the "babies will die" antichoice posters. It's so inaccurate, as if a yes vote will mean people will run out and start murdering babies.

Spanish Eyes · 13-04-2018 06:01PM

horseburger wrote: »

I did not state what you are implying.

I expressed a concern that if there is a diagnosis of an illness, or unfortunate condition, that it can't be stated with certainty how long a life will last, unless the pregnancy continues through to birth.

I said that if an abortion is carried out, it will never be known how long the child would have lived, after birth.

Would you accept that, as a valid concern, just as valid as concerns about the quality of life, of the parents and the baby, if the baby lives for an amount of time after being born?

Why would that be your concern if you are not the pregnant woman in question though?

Control agus control agus control go leor.

kylith · 13-04-2018 06:01PM

horseburger wrote: »

I did not state what you are implying.

I expressed a concern that if there is a diagnosis of an illness, or unfortunate condition, that it can't be stated with certainty how long a life will last, unless the pregnancy continues through to birth.

I said that if an abortion is carried out, it will never be known how long the child would have lived, after birth.

Would you accept that, as a valid concern, just as valid as concerns about the quality of life, of the parents and the baby, if the baby lives for an amount of time after being born?

Again I ask: whose should the decision to take the risk be? Especially given that I f the child does not beat the odds their life will be short and pain filled.

What is the cut off for allowing termination before birth? Is ok to terminate if they’ll live for an hour, but not if they’ll live for a day? Ok for a day, but not a week? If you _could_ know in advance how long they would live how long is long enough to justify their pain and their parents’ heartbreak?

baylah17 · 13-04-2018 06:01PM

horseburger wrote: »

reubenreuben wrote: »

So, what are you saying then?

I am asking how people can describe what is growing in the womb, as anything other than human life.

Easily actually
It is certainly potential human life but until it is born it is not "human life".

horseburger · 13-04-2018 06:01PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

If only those who are pro birth at any cost put half their energies into insisting on the guaranteed life long care of those who ARE born with or without disabilities, that would be so great.

Seems all the pro birth evangelism ends once the child is born. But that is success for that cohort. That's my thinking on the matter.

Is it not problematic to suggest that abortions should be carried out due to lack of services available to the parents and children that is born?

Surely in that argument, the case should be made that improved services should be made available, rather than arguing for abortion, for example, on the basis that current health services and child care services are not adequate?

Spanish Eyes · 13-04-2018 06:03PM

horseburger wrote: »

Is it not problematic to suggest that abortions should be carried out due to lack of services available to the parents and children that is born?

Surely in that argument, the case should be made that improved services should be made available, rather than arguing for abortion, for example, on the basis that current health services and child care services are not adequate?

Fine, show me where pro birth people have advocated for that? I haven't seen it anyway. Once there is a birth, that is a success for them no matter the consequences for the BORN child afterwards really.

horseburger · 13-04-2018 06:05PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Why would that be your concern if you are not the pregnant woman in question though?

Control agus control agus control go leor.

Is it not a logical concern, to consider that the life might last longer than predicted?

There has been cases where the child has lived longer than predicted. Peadar Toibin cited one example in his recent address to the Dáil.

SusieBlue · 13-04-2018 06:05PM

horseburger wrote: »

Is it not problematic to suggest that abortions should be carried out due to lack of services available to the parents and children that is born?

Surely in that argument, the case should be made that improved services should be made available, rather than arguing for abortion, for example, on the basis that current health services and child care services are not adequate?

We’ve had 35 years since the 8th was put in place to make such improvements. It hasn’t happened.
I have no intention of waiting another 35 years to see if anything improves. We need an immediate solution for the issues women are currently facing. It’s cruel to deny them the healthcare that they need.

SusieBlue · 13-04-2018 06:07PM

horseburger wrote: »

Is it not a logical concern, to consider that the life might last longer than predicted?

There has been cases where the child has lived longer than predicted. Peadar Toibin cited one example in his recent address to the Dáil.

Absolutely. A consideration for the woman/parents of the child to take when making a decision that will affect their family.
Not a consideration for society to have any input on. I don’t have to live with the consequences, the parents do. Their choice, not mine.

kylith · 13-04-2018 06:08PM

horseburger wrote: »

Is it not a logical concern, to consider that the life might last longer than predicted?

There has been cases where the child has lived longer than predicted. Peadar Toibin cited one example in his recent address to the Dáil.

But whose choice should it be to take that chance? Do 500 mother have to watch their child die an hour after birth for the 1 that will beat the odds? Answer the question, please!

Spanish Eyes · 13-04-2018 06:10PM

horseburger wrote: »

Is it not a logical concern, to consider that the life might last longer than predicted?

There has been cases where the child has lived longer than predicted. Peadar Toibin cited one example in his recent address to the D.

That is not what I was arguing really. But off you go and see if you can justify 35 years of inaction, abuse of children in care, lack of facilities, supports for parents, ah I could go on.

But no one on the pro birth side seems to get that a woman who does not want to be pregnant cannot rely on State services if she does decide to have a birth, does she, be honest now?

We cannot and should not judge anyone. Trust women please.

horseburger · 13-04-2018 06:16PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

We’ve had 35 years since the 8th was put in place to make such improvements. It hasn’t happened.
I have no intention of waiting another 35 years to see if anything improves. We need an immediate solution for the issues women are currently facing. It’s cruel to deny them the healthcare that they need.

I was talking about the idea, where it has been argued that the policies of government do not make it easier for people to raise children, in terms of health services and government economic policies.

It has been argued that abortion should be available to avoid having the child brought into such an unequal society.

In that scenario, is it not better to argue for better services, rather than abortion?

Using the argument of arguing for abortion as a result of the lack of services, is there not a risk, that what would result is a higher population of births from areas that are often described as more affluent, than areas that are often described as disadvantaged areas.

Couldn't that lead to the ongoing of an unequal society, if there is a greater population of people from one area and background, compared to another area and background?

PopePalpatine · 13-04-2018 06:16PM

erica74 wrote: »

I really hate the "babies will die" antichoice posters. It's so inaccurate, as if a yes vote will mean people will run out and start murdering babies.

The melodrama of them is ridiculous, but the pro-lifers won't care. All that matters is grabbing attention and grabbing the floating voter, just like the "If killing babies at 6 months disturbs you, vote NO" posters.

erica74 · 13-04-2018 06:26PM

4 of these along the Quay down as far as the Tower Hotel in Waterford.

Repeal the 8th

Donate if you can, only €15,000 to go to a half a million. That shows how much support we have.
https://togetherforyes.causevox.com/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=cf1

Spanish Eyes · 13-04-2018 06:26PM

horseburger wrote: »

I was talking about the idea, where it has been argued that the policies of government do not make it easier for people to raise children, in terms of health services and government economic policies.

It has been argued that abortion should be available to avoid having the child brought into such an unequal society.

In that scenario, is it not better to argue for better services, rather than abortion?

Using the argument of arguing for abortion as a result of the lack of services, is there not a risk, that what would result is a higher population of births from areas that are often described as more affluent, than areas that are often described as disadvantaged areas.

Couldn't that lead to the ongoing of an unequal society, if there is a greater population of people from one area and background, compared to another area and background?

Fair enough, but you still haven't demonstrated why the vast donations to the pro birth side are ploughed into their propaganda rather than used to lobby Government to provide services for those children most in need.

But anyway. This debate has nothing to do with babies or children, it is all about the control of women.

And the irony is, there are a lot of men dictating the terms to women in this debate. As if they will every have to think about the dilemma faced by some women every day. They should feck off out of the debate TBH.

Men hate women to have any control over anything. #Me too.

blanch152 · 13-04-2018 06:28PM

horseburger wrote: »

What's your view on the issue?

If you read my posts on the issue, I start from a very simple perspective.

The 8th amendment has been a legal abomination. It doesn't do what it intended to do, and it has had significant unintended side-effects requiring further referenda to clear up. The only logical conclusion is that it should be repealed and the Oireachtas should be given the power to legislate.

I have expressed other views in threads on the issue, but when it comes to the referendum, there is no need to express a view any more than it is legally a mess and should be repealed.

What happens next becomes a matter for the legislation, and I will be happy to debate the merits of the legislative proposals when they are going through the Dail. In the meantime, my view, is that everyone, no matter their personal view on abortion, should vote for repeal, in order to take this mess out of the Constitution.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments