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…273274276278279…324

Comments

  • #8252
    PhoenixParker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭PhoenixParker


    professore wrote: »
    I agree. And that's why this imaginary line when a fetus becomes human - and let's face it it is imaginary - since babies are effectively helpless for several months after birth you could make an argument they aren't human either - but they are so "cute" ....

    Make that call and write it into the referendum and put it in the constitution. End Of Debate.

    What we are doing now people will still be fighting about the ins and outs of abortion in 10 years time.

    A helpless baby can have their needs met by any member of the community, they may even need machines to keep them alive.

    A fetus on the other hand can only rely on one person and their body. It's a wholly different situation.


  • #8253
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    professore wrote: »
    For me personally? I think aborting a viable fetus is murder. If it's not viable, then it isn't murder. Something to be avoided if at all possible, but shouldn't be illegal.

    There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" abortions.
    To allow a woman make the heartbreaking decision to terminate a non-viable baby, you need to allow the mother who is on her own and can't cope with or afford another baby one too.

    Its either a life and its a baby or it isn't. It doesn't stop being a life just because its the type of abortion you approve of.
    So its either that all abortions are murder and shouldn't be allowed - which I disagree with but can get my head around, or it isn't and we allow women to have a choice in the first 12 weeks.

    To be ok with it in some circumstances and not others is just hypocrisy.


  • #8254
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I meant as a matter of fact.

    Since the legal penalties in this country are different, and it's not defined as murder here, then it isn't murder in the eyes of the law as far as I can tell.


  • #8255
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    professore wrote: »
    If the fetus is viable outside the womb, the mother can induce pregnancy and then have it adopted. Sure it isn't pleasant, but either is caring for an old sick relative with say dementia.

    And putting the 8th in the constitution reflected the opinions of people AT THE TIME. It worked extremely well for what it was designed to do.

    Please do some research on adoption in Ireland. Please. You don't have a clue.


  • #8256
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,919 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    If the fetus is viable outside the womb, the mother can induce pregnancy and then have it adopted. Sure it isn't pleasant, but either is caring for an old sick relative with say dementia.

    And putting the 8th in the constitution reflected the opinions of people AT THE TIME. It worked extremely well for what it was designed to do.


    It worked so well we had 2 further referendums to correct problems caused by the 8th? I dont think you really understand this at all if you are making statements like that.


  • Advertisement
  • #8257
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #8258
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Please do some research on adoption in Ireland. Please. You don't have a clue.
    +1
    Also proffering "adoption" as a solution does nothing for the health impacts on the mother in the case of the 8th - so it's not a solution anyway.


  • #8259
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,919 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    at least we got there in the end. :)


  • #8260
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" abortions.
    To allow a woman make the heartbreaking decision to terminate a non-viable baby, you need to allow the mother who is on her own and can't cope with or afford another baby one too.

    Its either a life and its a baby or it isn't. It doesn't stop being a life just because its the type of abortion you approve of.
    So its either that all abortions are murder and shouldn't be allowed - which I disagree with but can get my head around, or it isn't and we allow women to have a choice in the first 12 weeks.

    To be ok with it in some circumstances and not others is just hypocrisy.

    Hold on ... you are not understanding me. A fetus in the first 12 weeks isn't viable. A fetus at 30 weeks is. I'm OK with 12 weeks. However I can see how some people might not be, and not just because their priest told them so.


  • #8261
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    professore wrote: »
    Hold on ... you are not understanding me. A fetus in the first 12 weeks isn't viable. A fetus at 30 weeks is. I'm OK with 12 weeks. However I can see how some people might not be, and not just because their priest told them so.

    Those people need to keep their noses out of other people's uterus's and they'll have a much happier, peaceful life.


  • Advertisement
  • #8262
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    It worked so well we had 2 further referendums to correct problems caused by the 8th? I dont think you really understand this at all if you are making statements like that.

    This is because the 8th was very restrictive. Do you expect if we take the recommendations of the committee, write the guidelines into an amendment, and vote on those, and they pass by a large majority, that next year we will have people looking to extend abortion rights for healthy pregnancies at 40 weeks?

    If you put 12 weeks in the constitution, it completely kills any pro life arguments about late term abortions (except for FFA). Now you are leaving the door wide open to them.

    It's too late now either way. The 8th will probably be repealed, but expect a lot of pressure particularly from rural TDs to make the new laws very restrictive.


  • #8263
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    professore wrote: »
    Have said all along that repeal was a stupid way to approach this, amending it to have basic outlines about when it is and isn't OK to have an abortion and let the public vote and put it in the constitution was the way to go.

    It was a mistake to put the 8th into the constitution in the first place. The way to fix that is not to dick around with the wording, it is to delete it.

    Now, it may be hard to get simple deletion passed a referendum. That's OK, if we fail we will try again. Failing is better than putting a new botch into the constitution and waiting for the inevitable deaths, hard cases, and supreme court rulings to decide in 10 years what the new botch really means.


  • #8264
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    professore wrote: »
    It might not be on the same level as murder

    Because it is not murder.

    Again, this is a fact, not an opinion.


  • #8265
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,919 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    This is because the 8th was very restrictive. Do you expect if we take the recommendations of the committee, write the guidelines into an amendment, and vote on those, and they pass by a large majority, that next year we will have people looking to extend abortion rights for healthy pregnancies at 40 weeks?

    If you put 12 weeks in the constitution, it completely kills any pro life arguments about late term abortions (except for FFA). Now you are leaving the door wide open to them.

    It's too late now either way. The 8th will probably be repealed, but expect a lot of pressure particularly from rural TDs to make the new laws very restrictive.

    The 8th was supposed to do a very simple job. it failed. any new amendment you propose would also likely fail. Writing constitutional amendments is hard. Much harder than you seem to realise.


  • #8266
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    at least we got there in the end. :)

    You lot are really so smug about being right and winning some petty argument. Not interested in debate at all. I never even started the whole thing about abortion being murder.

    I'm just interested in the facts and morality of this debate. If the No vote wins it will be due in large part to the smugness and arrogance of the Yes campaign.

    The No campaign have huge issues too. In fact the most strident supporters of both campaigns have an awful lot in common, i.e. intolerance towards other people's viewpoints.

    Both are more of a religious belief than an actual position.


  • #8267
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    It was a mistake to put the 8th into the constitution in the first place. The way to fix that is not to dick around with the wording, it is to delete it.

    Now, it may be hard to get simple deletion passed a referendum. That's OK, if we fail we will try again. Failing is better than putting a new botch into the constitution and waiting for the inevitable deaths, hard cases, and supreme court rulings to decide in 10 years what the new botch really means.
    +1
    That;s the important thing that people need to remember. This will be like the Nice/Lisbon treaty referenda. If there's a "no" this time, there will be another referendum pretty soon. Ad nauseum until it's passed.


  • #8268
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,919 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    You lot are really so smug about being right and winning some petty argument. Not interested in debate at all. I never even started the whole thing about abortion being murder.

    I'm just interested in the facts and morality of this debate. If the No vote wins it will be due in large part to the smugness and arrogance of the Yes campaign.

    The No campaign have huge issues too. In fact the most strident supporters of both campaigns have an awful lot in common, i.e. intolerance towards other people's viewpoints.

    Both are more of a religious belief than an actual position.

    there is no intolerance to your viewpoint. their is intolerance to your logic, or rather the lack of it.


  • #8269
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    The 8th was supposed to do a very simple job. it failed. any new amendment you propose would also likely fail. Writing constitutional amendments is hard. Much harder than you seem to realise.

    There was no problem with same sex marriage?

    This is very likely to fail too. The Referendum Commission said so themselves. Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed.


  • #8270
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    professore wrote: »
    You lot are really so smug about being right and winning some petty argument. Not interested in debate at all. I never even started the whole thing about abortion being murder.

    I'm just interested in the facts and morality of this debate. If the No vote wins it will be due in large part to the smugness and arrogance of the Yes campaign.

    The No campaign have huge issues too. In fact the most strident supporters of both campaigns have an awful lot in common, i.e. intolerance towards other people's viewpoints.

    Both are more of a religious belief than an actual position.
    The yes side are intolerant of the no side's position as the no side's position involves imposing their "NO" to every woman in the land.
    The YES side still allows those on the NO side to not have an abortion ever, should they so choose.
    The no side does not allow those on the YES side to have an abortion should they choose. That's the difference.


  • #8271
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    professore wrote: »
    You lot are really so smug about being right and winning some petty argument. Not interested in debate at all. I never even started the whole thing about abortion being murder.

    I'm just interested in the facts and morality of this debate. If the No vote wins it will be due in large part to the smugness and arrogance of the Yes campaign.

    The No campaign have huge issues too. In fact the most strident supporters of both campaigns have an awful lot in common, i.e. intolerance towards other people's viewpoints.

    Both are more of a religious belief than an actual position.

    The Yes side are tolerant towards everyone's beliefs. Its the No side that are restrictive and controlling.
    You can vote yes and be against abortion and never avail of abortion services for the rest of your life - but you allow others who don't share your feelings get the healthcare they need.

    The No side are telling lies, using emotional blackmail and using graphic posters to manipulate people into agreeing with them. Its a really aggressive and forceful campaign that they are running.


  • Advertisement
  • #8272
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So you value the life of the mother over the life of the unborn. I can get behind that.

    So does everyone else. That's why we passed the 13th and 14th amendments, and rejected the 12th and 25th.

    The majority who passed the 8th thought they were just guaranteeing that things would stay the same, the status quo would remain, and pro-choice people wouldn't get abortion legalised by the European Courts or some such.

    They did not intend the AG to actually defend the rights of the unborn with injunctions. They did not intend information to be censored wholesale. And of course the womans life is worth more than a 6 week fetus, those things miscarry all the time, the world does not end.

    But the prolifers who wrote the amendment intended far more than just keeping abortion legal - they wanted to establish positive rights for the unborn and then use them against women. It was always a terrible, terrible idea.


  • #8273
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    professore wrote: »
    And putting the 8th in the constitution reflected the opinions of people AT THE TIME. It worked extremely well for what it was designed to do.

    The 8th was meant to prevent a constitutional right to abortion being found, and ended up being the basis of one.

    Its resulted in injunctions on the distribution of information and on accessing an abortion abroad, both of which required referendums to overturn. It's meant that on at least two instances, families in absolutely horrible situations had to go through the courts to get some basic dignity (X Case and Ms P). It continues to put us in breach of internationally recognised human rights. And it's means that pregnant women don't have the same right of consent that the rest of us enjoy when receiving medical treatment.

    It has not be any measure "worked extremely well" and the sooner we see the back of it, the better.


  • #8274
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    It worked so well we had 2 further referendums to correct problems caused by the 8th?

    I was going to say 4, but in fairness, the two we passed were to fix problems, the two we rejected were to make the problems worse.


  • #8275
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,919 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    There was no problem with same sex marriage?

    This is very likely to fail too. The Referendum Commission said so themselves. Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed.

    the constitutional amendment around marriage was a lot simpler. Everybody understands what
    Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

    means. There is no ambiguity. The 8th was nothing but ambiguity.


  • #8276
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    professore wrote: »
    There was no problem with same sex marriage?

    This is very likely to fail too. The Referendum Commission said so themselves. Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed.

    Have you been drinking?


  • #8277
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    The Yes side are tolerant towards everyone's beliefs. Its the No side that are restrictive and controlling.
    You can vote yes and be against abortion and never avail of abortion services for the rest of your life - but you allow others who don't share your feelings get the healthcare they need.

    The No side are telling lies, using emotional blackmail and using graphic posters to manipulate people into agreeing with them. Its a really aggressive and forceful campaign that they are running.

    I agree with everything you are saying here except the first sentence. I don't believe the yes side (or the vocal ones at least) are tolerant of everyone's beliefs either. Try saying to someone on the Yes side you are thinking of voting no and see what happens.

    It's the old Hilary Clinton calling Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables" all over again. Well guess what, if someone thinks you are worthless anyway why prove them wrong?

    If the Yes side were clear about what they actually want then they would be far more convincing to the middle ground who are going to decide this vote. The middle ground meaning people like me - middle aged, registered to vote and actually votes in elections and referenda by thinking about it and not along ideological, religious or party lines. I'm the kind of person you need to convince. Insulting me isn't going to do it.


  • #8278
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Have you been drinking?

    No, just the Referendum Commission.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/no-guarantee-a-yes-vote-will-lead-to-abortion-up-to-12-weeks-watchdog-36838099.html
    The booklet states the legal effect of a Yes vote would be that the Oireachtas has full authority "to pass laws regulating the termination of pregnancy".

    "These laws need not limit the availability of termination to circumstances where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. Any law may be changed by the Oireachtas," the commission says.

    The clear outline of the referendum is likely to be seized upon by No campaigners who argue that a future Dáil could extend the availability of abortion beyond the first trimester.

    It also reinforces the fact that TDs and senators may not be able to reach agreement on what type of legislation should be passed, in which case the existing laws will apply even if the Eighth Amendment is repealed.


  • #8279
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    professore wrote: »
    Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed.

    It's pretty clear what the position will be after the 8th is replaced. The Oireachtas will be able to legislate.


  • #8280
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,919 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    No, just the Referendum Commission.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/no-guarantee-a-yes-vote-will-lead-to-abortion-up-to-12-weeks-watchdog-36838099.html

    you posted that already.


  • Advertisement
  • #8281
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,919 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    I agree with everything you are saying here except the first sentence. I don't believe the yes side (or the vocal ones at least) are tolerant of everyone's beliefs either. Try saying to someone on the Yes side you are thinking of voting no and see what happens.

    It's the old Hilary Clinton calling Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables" all over again. Well guess what, if someone thinks you are worthless anyway why prove them wrong?

    If the Yes side were clear about what they actually want then they would be far more convincing to the middle ground who are going to decide this vote. The middle ground meaning people like me - middle aged, registered to vote and actually votes in elections and referenda by thinking about it and not along ideological, religious or party lines. I'm the kind of person you need to convince. Insulting me isn't going to do it.

    nobody needs to convince you of anything. you need to make your own decision.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement