The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

You are the one advocating repealing the 8th amendment, the onus is on you to to outline the basis for changing the status quo and to prove that a 6 week old zygote should not have a right to life.

Well firstly, the onus isn't on me to prove anything to you.
Because you aren't listening to anything you are told, which is why the last 6 pages of the thread descended into a repetitive mess.

Secondly, the act states it has equal life to that of the mother.

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother

I've already explained several times why I don't feel a fetus or zygote is of equal worth to a living woman.

Now I'm asking you, why you feel a zygote should have equal rights to a born citizen?

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As I've explained to you dozens of times, those explanations don't stand up to scrutiny.

Your arguments in favour of keeping the 8th don't stand up to my scrutiny.

I shouldn't have to live my life and suffer restricted maternity care, because my choices fall short of your standards.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As I've explained to you dozens of times, those explanations don't stand up to scrutiny.

so all of the arguments below dont stand up to scrutiny?

It has no functioning brain.
It has no functioning nervous system.
It has no functioning organs.
It cannot survive outside of a womb.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

How does a baby in a woman's, who did not choose to be there, impact on anyone else's rights?

you think carrying a baby puts no limitations on you?

If you can be denied medical treatment because you are pregnant your rights are being impacted on
If you are forced to have a medical procedure you don't want because you are pregnant your rights are being impacted on
If you are raped and become pregnant you are forced to pay a price for a situation you did not ask to be in and are in through no fault of your own
The right to life of the unborn interferes with womens rights in all of those situations.

Should the 8th be retained, what would you say to a couple who are forced to travel for a termination?

BarleySweets wrote: »

And my favorite: The fictional character, Mary, from the bestselling novel “The Bible”, had a pregnancy that started when she was a virgin. (Which is, of course, impossible in real life.)

Actually, no. As 'virginity' is dependant on PiV sex a lesbian could easily have a virgin birth, or a heterosexual couple if, as Scrubs put it, there was an airstrike on an outlying region.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That does not fit the description of a child five minutes before delivery.

Wrong and next.

Oh would you give over. The referendum is for on request at pre 12 weeks gestation, and later in heartbreaking cases of FFA.
There will be no abortions occurring 5 minutes before birth so you have no need to keep bringing it up.
Its pure deflection.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That does not fit the description of a child five minutes before delivery.

Wrong and next.

The condescending attitude must be a real vote winner. No wonder the No side are trailing so badly.

BarleySweets wrote: »

You’re doing it again, you’re confusing this conversation which is limited to removing one article from the constitution with a debate about legislative matters relating to abortion. Tell your local TDs about any concerns you have about future legislation and what procedures will be required by that future legislation.

This conversation is about one thing and one thing only, to remove the 8th or not.

And to answer your direct question about Niamh Smith TD: if she wishes to ignore the concerns of a woman who does not consent to become a mother, then yes, I would consider her to be anti-women. Exactly the same way if anybody singled out men and stopped us from choosing to have a sandwich for lunch and demanded we had soup instead, such people would be anti-men.

You don't seem to grasp that fact, that the repeal of the Eighth Amendment, and uncertainty around the grounds under which abortion will be permitted, are related.

Are you not anti woman, for disrespecting Niamh Smyth's sincere perspective on this issue, where abortion could be argued as anti woman in that the life of a female foetus is ended in abortion?

I suggest this in reference, to the dialogue between Patricia Lohr Medical Director of BPAS, and Peter Fitzpatrick TD Fine Gael, at the Oireachtas Committee meeting on 22nd November 2017, where Patricia Lohr stated that an abortion on grounds of "foetal sex" as originally requested by the pregnant woman, but not approved - could be carried out under another ground - as suggested to the pregnant woman, by the staff of the abortion clinic.

One presumes in this scenario that the pregnant woman was not aware that the alternative ground suggested, was available to her as a ground.

The result of this is, that it is very difficult to ensure that abortions are not taking place, on grounds that are not permitted by legislation.

In this scenario, where an abortion is sought under a ground not legislated for, why doesn't the abortion clinic not just say that they cannot carry an abortion out on the ground requested, and leave it at that.

Why does a staff member of the abortion clinic, suggest an alternative ground - another ground that is approved for abortion?

This alternative suggestion of another ground ensures that the abortion takes place, on a ground that was not originally sought by the pregnant mother?

Doesn't that raise a question of ethics, with regard to an abortion clinic, contravening the legislation that is in place - with regard to the reason given by the pregnant woman, for requesting an abortion - in the country in which the clinic is operating, in relation to the grounds that are permitted for abortion?

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I know it's not correct, that was the whole point.

No, again you’re deflecting, this whole conversation thread began when you exclaimed that saying “a pregnancy” was wrong. That a pregnancy was not a thing. In a previous post I told you that saying “a pregnancy” was correct, because “pregnancy” is a noun. You seem to think you can pick and choose beliefs and facts to suit your faith, but you can’t. Especially not when you’re nitpicking grammar that you should have learned in high babies!

In that last post, my point was to correct your misuse of “a pregnancy” and your misunderstanding of how to incorporate “a pregnancy” into grammatically correct sentences. I showed you that saying “a pregnancy” is perfectly crime lent and I even wrote some sentences to show you how to write sentences in English that incorporate “a pregnancy”.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Wrong again. This is getting very tiresome.

Causation and co-relation are not the same thing. Just because you are pregnant does not automatically put your life in immediate risk, the same way having an unwanted child does mean your other children will automatically be condemned to a right to life.

This is all a matter of opinion. That's why we're having a referendum, because opinions on the matter differ.

That doesn't make people "wrong". It means we don't feel the same as you do on the issue. Your tone is extremely patronising, with your "Wrong!", "Try again" and "Next" type comments.
We aren't here to convince you when you clearly won't be convinced, which is why I can't understand why you keep demanding answers and explanations from people.