Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

1…185186188190191…324

Comments

  • #5612
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    horseburger wrote: »
    And the difference in the human status of a human foetus and human being is what?

    The law recognises human beings, they have rights, can be citizens and so forth.

    The human fetus has no rights in law except the one the 8th gave it, and that one not for long.


  • #5613
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    seamus wrote: »
    Dublin City Council runs the register for the DCC area. There are 31 city or county county councils in Ireland, each who make up their own rules for managing the register in their location.

    Blame the poor journalism.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #5614
    horseburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭horseburger


    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    yes altered by referendum to include 2 new articles in the constitution. The right to travel for abortion and the threat of suicide being reasonable grounds for abortion.

    The 2013 legislation endeavoured to clarify the circumstances under which abortion could be performed, but is still bound by the 8th amendment and so can not impinge on the constitutional right to life given to the unborn.

    Constitutional amendments are not the same as legislation. In the legal hierarchy constitution trumps all

    thanks for your reply.

    Are most people in this thread just leaning towards the perspective of repeal, do you reckon, or can they understand the perspectives of those that have concern about abortion?

    I've been watching discussions about abortion this last number of months, and can understand arguments on both sides.


  • #5615
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,490 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    LimeGreenBean wrote: »
    I can't believe this is my first post, but I guess this is the crux of the pro-life movement and to be honest, it has just really started to bug me how often this statement has been glossed over in the last few months. Not to be disrespectful to anyone on this thread or the repeal movement in general, you have changed many people's views on abortion. Anyways, in response to this argument:

    You justify destroying human life every single day. Have you ever donated blood, or bone marrow, or a lung? No, probably not. Are you a murderer because you haven't? Countless people die waiting on kidney transplants lists. And you could give them a kidney, you could keep them alive. Are you a terrible person because you don't? If you are involved in a car crash and you're brain dead will the doctors and nurses ravage your body for organs? No, they won't, they'll ask your family what you want and they will respect your wishes.

    We don't force people to donate their bone marrow, even though it would save countless lives. We don't call people up to donate their kidney's like it's jury service. We don't label suicide victims as murders, even though their now useless organs could have saved many people's lives. If you somehow find a surgeon and ask him to remove a kidney so that you can keep it in a jar, you won't be charged with murder, even though that kidney could have saved someone's life. The surgeon also won't be charged with murder. We respect people's right to do what they want to their body regardless of whether someone else will suffer or die.

    Except, in pregnancy. A woman's organs keep the baby/foetus/whatever-name-you-want alive, she sustains their life. Should she not get to decide how her organs are used? Should she not get to decide what happens to her body? We allow brain-dead people to decide what will happen to their body when they die. Think about it, we give fewer rights to pregnant women, than we do to brain-dead people, in this country.

    When I was 18, (which was only 4 years ago) I felt the exact same way you did, honestly. I just want to give you a different slant on things. I hope you vote, this will probably be your first one.

    This argument has come up already and they aren't the same.

    In the donor scenario, you do nothing and the person dies.
    In the abortion scenario, you do nothing and the baby lives.

    Abortion requires you to actively participate, which is different from a moral point of view.


  • #5616
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    horseburger wrote: »
    Sensitive little soul aren't you!:)

    And the difference in the human status of a human foetus and human being is what?
    According to the OED: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens

    As it is not a child* until it is born it cannot be a human being. QED.

    * A child is biologically between birth and puberty.


  • Advertisement
  • #5617
    horseburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭horseburger


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act of 2013 did not 'alter it', it simply enacted the 8th Amendment in accordance with the judgment in the X case (rather late, but...).

    The risk of suicide also did not 'alter it', the Supreme Court ruled that the 8th always meant that suicide was a valid reason for an abortion.

    Hi

    I didn't mean alter as such, I probably should have written the circumstances that it covers to allow for abortion.

    Thanks for your reply.


  • #5618
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,922 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    kylith wrote: »
    According to the OED: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens

    As it is not a child* until it is born it cannot be a human being. QED.

    * A child is biologically between birth and puberty.

    you wasted your time posting that. they will jut ignore it like they have every time it has been explained to them.


  • #5619
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    horseburger wrote: »

    I've been watching discussions about abortion this last number of months, and can understand arguments on both sides.

    And the arguments in favour of Repeal? What are they?


  • #5620
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    horseburger wrote: »
    Are most people in this thread just leaning towards the perspective of repeal, do you reckon, or can they understand the perspectives of those that have concern about abortion?

    There's a poll at the top of the page that shows Yes:No:Don't Know running at

    73:20:7

    So far, I have had difficulty understanding the perspectives of those that have concerns about abortion, because they seem to be inconsistent and illogical when not actively hypocritical.


  • #5621
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    horseburger wrote: »
    thanks for your reply.

    Are most people in this thread just leaning towards the perspective of repeal, do you reckon, or can they understand the perspectives of those that have concern about abortion?

    I've been watching discussions about abortion this last number of months, and can understand arguments on both sides.

    Not really. I mean I can understand why its an easy, almost lazy option to be in the "save da baybeez" camp.
    Sure wouldn't we all love to just choose life and love both. In an ideal world this is what we'd all be choosing.
    But that isn't reality of what life today is like, and its extremely naive to assume otherwise.

    I can see why someone might not like the idea of abortion, I myself wouldn't have one. But it isn't all about me and my beliefs.
    The pro-life side just comes across as really narrow minded and selfish.

    And I fundamentally believe we need to look after health, wellbeing, wants and needs of born, living citizens, such as women, before we look after the potential unborn ones.
    I could never and will never be in favour of assigning rights to the unborn at the expense of the woman carrying it.


  • Advertisement
  • #5622
    horseburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭horseburger


    kylith wrote: »
    According to the OED: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens

    As it is not a child* until it is born it cannot be a human being. QED.

    * A child is biologically between birth and puberty.

    You know what I meant though, surely?

    A living being that starts life in the womb of a female human being, as a result of the joining of a human male sperm and human female egg, can't really be described as anything other than human.


  • #5623
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    horseburger wrote: »
    You know what I meant though, surely?

    A living being that starts life in the womb of a female human being, as a result of the joining of a human male sperm and human female egg, can't really be described as anything other than human.

    Would you ever stop with this nonsense, its been done to death by you already. We don't need to keep rehashing and going over this again and again.


  • #5624
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    horseburger wrote: »
    I didn't mean alter as such, I probably should have written the circumstances that it covers to allow for abortion.

    So you probably should have written what exactly? This?

    Was it not the circumstances that it covers to allow for abortion with out a referendum in 2013, and also the circumstances that it covers to allow for abortion to allow for risk of suicide?

    No, I think you probably should not have written that.


  • #5625
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    horseburger wrote: »
    You know what I meant though, surely?

    A living being that starts life in the womb of a female human being, as a result of the joining of a human male sperm and human female egg, can't really be described as anything other than human.

    It can
    It can be described and is described as a fetus.
    You had the definition of a Human Being already Bertie so why keep asking the same question over and over?


  • #5626
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,922 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    horseburger wrote: »
    You know what I meant though, surely?

    A living being that starts life in the womb of a female human being, as a result of the joining of a human male sperm and human female egg, can't really be described as anything other than human.

    your failure to understand something that has been presented to you several times already is a problem only you can solve for yourself. We really cant make it any simpler for you.


  • #5627
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    horseburger wrote: »
    A living being that starts life in the womb of a female human being, as a result of the joining of a human male sperm and human female egg, can't really be described as anything other than human.

    My appendix is human and alive, but it is not an individual human being with rights.

    If my doctor says it has to come out, the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter, thank feck.


  • #5628
    horseburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭horseburger


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    And the arguments in favour of Repeal? What are they?

    As I already stated, one of the cases would be where there no chance of any kind of length of life after birth, like anencephaly.


  • #5629
    horseburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭horseburger


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    My appendix is human and alive, but it is not an individual human being with rights.

    If my doctor says it has to come out, the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter, thank feck.

    Good stuff, I'm happy for you.

    Was there something you expected me to say in response to you talking about your appendix?


  • #5630
    horseburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭horseburger


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    your failure to understand something that has been presented to you several times already is a problem only you can solve for yourself. We really cant make it any simpler for you.

    That a human created by two separate humans, is not a human?


  • #5631
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    horseburger wrote: »
    thanks for your reply.

    Are most people in this thread just leaning towards the perspective of repeal, do you reckon, or can they understand the perspectives of those that have concern about abortion?

    I've been watching discussions about abortion this last number of months, and can understand arguments on both sides.


    I cannot understand a single argument against repealing the amendment.

    The constitutional amendment is a nonsense. It has created the X case, the Y Case, the C Case etc. and has had to be amended twice. It was supposed to ban abortions but has resulted in limited abortion being available. It has also at various times ensured that women have died in unpalatable circumstances.

    No matter your view on abortion, the inescapable conclusion is that the 8th is just about the worst way in the world to deal with the issue. Hence, we are replacing it with a provision that provides for Oireachtas to legislate.

    What happens next is a matter for the politicians we elect. Given the current Dail arithmetic, it is quite possible that we will have an election before any legislation on abortion is passed. That gives you and everyone else the chance to elect politicians who will legislate the way you want. Democracy in action.

    In the meantime, the cursed 8th Amendment will have been repealed.


  • Advertisement
  • #5632
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    horseburger wrote: »
    thanks for your reply.

    Are most people in this thread just leaning towards the perspective of repeal, do you reckon, or can they understand the perspectives of those that have concern about abortion?

    I've been watching discussions about abortion this last number of months, and can understand arguments on both sides.

    I think there is a difference in pacing in this thread, a lot of posters here like myself, have been thinking about this issue for a long time, so they have already listened to the arguments for and against and come to a conclusion.
    I think people who have never considered the issue prior to the last few months/last year or are further behind on that thought process and it probably seems like the rest of us are all gung ho on choice without thinking, but trust me, it's been well considered.

    I was born the year of the 8th amendment and I've been pro choice since I was in school. We were shown a video of an abortion, we had plenty of talks, I've had plenty of time to consider both sides. To a certain extent I can understand why people might be "pro-life" on a religious basis but I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't personally need to make further consideration on the topic.


  • #5633
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,812 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    horseburger wrote: »
    That a human created by two separate humans, is not a human?

    Human can be both a noun and an adjective. Why can't you accept this?

    Human as a noun can be used for the man and woman that created the fetus, but not the fetus itself. Human as an adjective can be used to describe the fetus, but also could describe the man and woman that created.

    It's like you are trying to play the semantics game but don't understand the fundamentals.


  • #5634
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Dole Scrounging Vegan Crossfitter wrote: »
    Human can be both a noun and an adjective. Why can't you accept this?

    Human as a noun can be used for the man and woman that created the fetus, but not the fetus itself. Human as an adjective can be used to describe the fetus, but also could describe the man and woman that created.

    It's like you are trying to play the semantics game but don't understand the fundamentals.

    Don't worry.
    From my observation the no side is largely populated by people who don't understand the fundamentals. It's a pity there cant be a fact checker exam before being allowed to vote.


  • #5635
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    horseburger wrote: »
    You know what I meant though, surely?

    A living being that starts life in the womb of a female human being, as a result of the joining of a human male sperm and human female egg, can't really be described as anything other than human.
    Where has anyone described it as not human? It’s not a human _being_ as outlined in my post that you quoted.

    To keep insisting that it is is to try to pass your option off as fact, which is dishonest of you.


  • #5636
    AnneFrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭AnneFrank


    Save The 8th.


  • #5637
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    I think there is a difference in pacing in this thread, a lot of posters here like myself, have been thinking about this issue for a long time, so they have already listened to the arguments for and against and come to a conclusion.
    I think people who have never considered the issue prior to the last few months/last year or are further behind on that thought process and it probably seems like the rest of us are all gung ho on choice without thinking, but trust me, it's been well considered.

    I was born the year of the 8th amendment and I've been pro choice since I was in school. We were shown a video of an abortion, we had plenty of talks, I've had plenty of time to consider both sides. To a certain extent I can understand why people might be "pro-life" on a religious basis but I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't personally need to make further consideration on the topic.


    I agree with you to a large extent. There are many people of my generation who voted Yes in 1983 who have come to a different view over a long period of time, based on experience, events like the X case, changing social mores, and changing availability of technology such as the abortion pill, as well as being part of a more tolerant and diverse society and for many of them their view now is that the 8th should be repealed.

    At the same time there are those of that generation whose personal experience has been more limited, never experienced a crisis pregnancy in their family, thankfully never dealt with an abuse or rape incident, still hold to a more traditional way of life etc. and whose views haven't changed.

    However, the sheer number of people of my generation who are going to vote repeal tells me there is a good chance that this will pass.


  • #5638
    Shadowstrife
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 83 ✭✭Shadowstrife


    ^ This.


  • #5639
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    Save The 8th.

    Are you going to keep dropping in with that, as you have done a few times now, or do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation?


  • #5640
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    horseburger wrote: »
    I cannot understand how people can try and argue that it isn't human.
    horseburger wrote: »
    I've been watching discussions about abortion this last number of months, and can understand arguments on both sides.

    So you can not understand the CORE argument many people on the pro choice side are offering yet in the next breath you tell us that you can understand the arguments on both sides?

    So basically your posts have stopped even being INTERNALLY consistent instead of simply inconsistent with the people you had been replying to.
    horseburger wrote: »
    Are most people in this thread just leaning towards the perspective of repeal, do you reckon, or can they understand the perspectives of those that have concern about abortion?

    I think I understand the perspective of those against repeal AND those against abortion. The two things are not the same.

    1) The perspective of those against repeal so far seem to be based solely on the concern that they are against abortion. Leaving the question of abortion aside, I have seen ZERO arguments against repeal in and of itself. No arguments about it's implications or effects on general law, or maternity care or anything like that. They ONLY appear to bring up the implications it has on the topic of abortion. Their concern is solely that this change will open up legislation to allow abortion. If they have any other argument or position against repeal, I simply have not seen it yet.

    2) The perspective of those against abortion appears to be based on values we all share. That is A) Human Rights and B) protecting the rights of the most vulnerable in our society..... in this case "babys". The issue for me is such people seem to not just have, but sometimes consciously maintain and defend, a complete ignorance as to the philosophy behind what rights are, what they are for, how they work, and where why and how they are actually applied. They simply do not want to know why applying such concepts a a sentience devoid blob of human biological matter is simply an incoherent position with no philosophical or scientific basis outside mere appeals to taxonomy. Their heart is in the right place (wanting to protect rights and protect the vulnerable) but it is misplaced and misdirected (incoherent about where to apply it and on what basis).

    If i am missing anything in the anti repeal position then I would more than welcome someone of a minimum threshold of coherence and honesty to explain it to me. Someone who actually wants to engage in the conversation in good faith and not what we have seen displayed here.
    horseburger wrote: »
    That a human created by two separate humans, is not a human?

    Which, as has been explained to you multiple times.... true to form and prediction you JUST ignored it all over again...... is not at all what people are claiming or saying.

    I would genuinely love to climb into your head for the half a second it would take for me to find out what YOU believe you achieve in maintaining...... this blatantly and transparently..... the tactic of feigning ignorance on this point..... pretending day in and day out over multiple posts that you have not had something explained/answered for you when in fact it has been done by MULTIPLE Users and some of them.... myself included..... MULTIPLE times.

    Clearly you think this dishonest and egregiously blatant and fetid little move gains you something. But I am genuinely and wholly ignorant as to what you believe that might be. So dishonest and blatant a move is it that it erodes and destroys any credibility anything else you say might garner. SO whatever you think you are gaining must be quite something. I would genuinely love to know.

    The only theory I have working at the moment (without going down the more obvious route of suggesting trolling or "poe" and other such things) is that while this lie is not convincing anyone else.... you have actually managed to convince yourself of it. Which would be, from the perspective of the psychologist in me, really interesting.


  • Advertisement
  • #5641
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    Save the 8th
    AnneFrank wrote: »
    Save The 8th.

    Repeat it all you want, but you're going to have to do more than just parrot a slogan if you want to convince people.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement