8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Overheal · 08-05-2018 06:31AM

The_Brood wrote: »

And you have assumed that I support those things or that I am against abortion in every case why? Simple - because much like this entire debate from beginning to end, it's all based on hysteria and not on logic, reason, and common sense. Anyone who disagrees with you must hate you and have no compassion, right?

I certainly don't have all the answers, and it is a complicated issue. My specific problem is with the dominant pro-abortion argument that seeks to pretend that what you are not killing is human life. All kinds of logic loops are made to get away from that fact.

As evidence you cannot explain to my why a 1 month baby deserves every protection under the law, while a more intelligent mouse (and many other more intelligent creatures) are treated as less than trash?

Speaking of reason and common sense why are you trying to equivocate a human child and an animal? There are animal rights issues sure. This is a purely human rights concern. If you’re really genuinely butthurt about a mouse not having a right to have an abortion go nag your local politician to sponsor a mouse-personhood bill.

If you want to split hairs it’s life and it’s life of human origin. There is no disputing that. I would argue it’s not alive per se but that’s not really the thrust of the issue for everyone. This isn’t about the absoluteness of that: “should we kill for the hell of it lads yay or nay” this is about establishing, in statutory (societal) law, how to legally address the conflict in priorities with the life of an unborn human embryo/zygote/fetus with the life of the host mother. As in, what’s more important: right now the law says it’s more important to carry the fetus to term than it is to prioritize otherwise pressing medical needs of the woman.

The fact is, Yes or No, you’re condoning death in some manner or description. By voting No you are just voting to place more preference on preserving an unborn human life than you are the parent that would have been expected to raise it. By voting no you are taking the choices away from people and, in my opinion, are much more directly responsible for all the consequences especially the fatal consequences. With a yes vote you are giving that person the freedom to choose what happens and it’s in their hands. Something that will happen either way - abortion is millennia old - but something that will be done in the safest manners possible, ie. Above the table and regulated.

erica74 · 08-05-2018 07:25AM

Last day to register

Repeal the 8th

08-05-2018 07:32AM

RobertKK wrote: »

I believe it will normalise abortion, and rates of abortion will rise.

Abortion is normal.
What do you mean rates will rise? I believe that a lot of women who go overseas for abortions give false addresses. We cannot be sure how many women here are taking internet bought abortion pills.
There are very few abortions carried out in Ireland every year.
So, if you mean the number of recorded abortions will rise here, then yes, I would imagine they will.
But, I doubt the number of actual abortions taking place will change too much, & if it does go up, all that implies is that the women who were not able to travel, can now avail of abortion.

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2018 08:07AM

The_Brood wrote:

And you have provided absolutely no reasoning as to why that is horrible, but butchering women to be - unborn children developing into women is fine? Why should they not have the right to grow up, to become someone, to live their life instead of being snuffed out before politicians can grant them rights?

This complete ignorance of what the 8th does, who and what it affects, and how it applies to Irish law was somewhat excusable when the referendum was announced. There is absolutely no reason for it at this stage.

Overheal · 08-05-2018 08:18AM

Aside from a noticeable and brief uptick when the housing crisis happened and the first gulf war, abortion rates in the US have continued to decline every year since legalization with the exception of the first few years when the base rate and record keeping got established. So RobertKKs concerns to me seem unfounded

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-05-2018 08:25AM

amcalester wrote: »

Expect that a fetus isn’t a baby.

The_Brood wrote: »

It is not a rock, it is a developing life that if left uninterpreted will result in a baby.

So you agree with the user you are replying to then. It is not a baby. Always good to put a flag in points of agreement on this thread given disagreement is so rife.

sabat wrote: »

So you don't find it just a little bit worrying that almost 200,000 women in the UK every year are so perturbed by the idea of giving birth that they decide to get rid of the baby? Is that not a national health crisis in its own right?

I absolutely think that should be a concern. We should look at the reasons why people seek abortion, and then use that data to reduce the number of abortions happening. If it is due to a lack of education, we should work on education. If it is to do with contraception, we should work on contraception. If it is because people do not have the time, money and resources to support a baby then we should look at our welfare system.

Thankfully the number of voices who disagree with that are thin on the ground. We did have one user going around saying we should not only do away with abortions, but social welfare and single parent allowances too. So basically HIS solution was not only to remove the option of abortion, but exacerbate the reasons people seek them in the first place. And why? Because he thinks forcing lower class women to give birth forces them to better themselves in life. Because apparently lower class women can not be trusted to better themselves any other way.

So yes, it is a crisis we should work on. I just do not believe we should be working on it by way of doing what we can to remove the choice of abortion from people. That is one of those "treat the symptom not the disease" moves that affords no discernible utility whatsoever.

As I keep trying to say on this thread, there IS common ground between the two sides of this debate. And that common ground is that we all want less abortions (ideally none) to be happening for any reason. That we disagree on HOW to attain that ideal should not be used to ignore the common ground we all share here.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-05-2018 08:26AM

The_Brood wrote: »

By that logic there absolutely should be no value to a 1 month old baby's life either. It has no distinct personality, sense of right or wrong, moral compass, appreciation of art, absolutely anything that anyone links to the value of a full human being. A mouse has more intelligence at that point.

By YOUR logic maybe, but not by the logic of the person you were replying to which you have simply distorted. Also how do you know that a baby has no distinct personality? It might not be capable of EXPRESSING it in a way that you can view, but that does not mean it is not there. An adult suffering from locked in syndrome for example has a personality, even if YOU can not see it.

Further you do seem to love talking in absolutes. When you say "absolutely anything that anyone links to the value of a full human being" you are simply outright wrong. Why? Because I for one am an example of someone that falsifies your statement and I exist. Therefore your statement is false.

Why? Because the very faculty of sentience itself is what I "link to the value of a full human being". Not what level that faculty is operating at. Not how capable the human is of expressing it. But simply HAVING it.

A 1 month old baby has it as far as we can tell. A 12/16 week old fetus does not. At all. Even a little bit. And is in fact missing many of the pre-requisites for even having it.

So sorry if the reality of what actual people actually think does not match the assertions you want to make about what you WANT them to think.

The_Brood wrote: »

There is an absurdly long list of animals that display a much, much, much greater sentience than a 1-month old human baby

Which is irrelevant because many of the people who are advocating pro choice are not equivocating between different levels of sentience, but between the presence and lack of it. Which are two VERY different approaches even though you appear to want to act like they are the same.

A human being at 1 month, 1 year, 10 years, 50 years and 100 years are all instances of human sentience. They might be operating at different levels, of expressing at different levels. But they ARE ALL instances of human sentience.

The fetus at 12/16 weeks is not. Never has been. And is a distinct period of time away from ever being.

And equivocating over varying levels of sentience along the human time line and comparing it to instances of mouse sentience is a red herring that dodges the point people are actually making about such a fetus.

PlaneSpeeking · 08-05-2018 08:43AM

Well, came into work today to a "why are you here ? What about your x-ray ?"

When I explain there was incredulity that it can happen - and one person (a No voter) who said "Sorry for you, but you can't be too careful".

I explained - again - there was no chance of pregnancy and (you guys may want to take a seat for this...) she replied:

"How can you be 100% cast iron certain ?"

Now I may have gone to Catholic school and be taught by nuns but in the intervening 30 years I've picked up how babies are made!

Last day to register guys - if you're not already. Vote Yes for compassion, healthcare and safe medical treatment for all who need it.

#RepealThe8th

....... · 08-05-2018 09:23AM

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali · 08-05-2018 09:27AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Do you disagree that the Supreme Court ruled that the 8th amendment was the only protection in Irish law for the unborn and their right to life?

The Supreme Court ruled no such thing.

They ruled that the equal right to life of the unborn was the only Constitutional right the unborn have, and that the unborn are not children under the law.

The unborn had no Constitutional rights in 1982 either, but abortion was illegal back then before the botched wording of the 8th made it legal.

So removing the Constitutional equal right to life does not mean removing all protection in Irish law.

Mr. CooL ICE · 08-05-2018 09:30AM

I applied for change of address in the register last week, but it hasn't been updated online yet. Any idea how long the address change takes?

Mushy · 08-05-2018 09:42AM

Dole Scrounging Vegan Crossfitter wrote: »

I applied for change of address in the register last week, but it hasn't been updated online yet. Any idea how long the address change takes?

In same position myself, quite concerned by now.

PlaneSpeeking · 08-05-2018 09:46AM

I got worried last week when the register wasn't showing me.

Just checked again and I am there! Very happy to extend my rights to improve my country.

Zerbini Blewitt · 08-05-2018 09:58AM

Dole Scrounging Vegan Crossfitter wrote: »

I applied for change of address in the register last week, but it hasn't been updated online yet. Any idea how long the address change takes?

It will not be updated on checktheregister before the referendum.
That register is only updated in February (and maybe a 2nd time later in the year).

So you'll have to contact the franchise section of your local council to verify the change: mine sorted an address change query speedily by email.

Zubeneschamali · 08-05-2018 10:11AM

RobertKK wrote: »

All my close friends including female and relations are no voters

Did they all tell you they were voting No to same sex marriage, too?

bloodless_coup · 08-05-2018 10:31AM

All those who abandoned ship during the hard times are flying back for the day to vote, and it seems most of them are voting yes.

Disgusting.

ELM327 · 08-05-2018 10:33AM

doylefe wrote: »

All those who abandoned ship during the hard times are flying back for the day to vote, and it seems most of them are voting yes.

Disgusting.

If they are registered and eligible to vote they have only left in the last 18 months.
The "hard times" were 8-10 years ago now, completely irrelevant.

ELM327 · 08-05-2018 10:33AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Did they all tell you they were voting No to same sex marriage, too?

That's what I'd tell him.

Although I'd have more clued in compassionate friends to be fair. The only people I know that are voting no are through commercial connections not personal.

gmisk · 08-05-2018 10:35AM

doylefe wrote: »

All those who abandoned ship during the hard times are flying back for the day to vote, and it seems most of them are voting yes.

Disgusting.

Er ok then...if they were mostly voting yes would you be happier?

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-05-2018 10:35AM

doylefe wrote: »

All those who abandoned ship during the hard times are flying back for the day to vote, and it seems most of them are voting yes.

Disgusting.

Confused on a few points here as to what exactly is "disgusting".

Firstly, assuming they are actually legally eligible to vote, what is disgusting about them returning to do so? I am assuming here both you AND I think people returning to vote illegally is disgusting. So I focus my question only on those actually eligible.

Secondly, I am curious what your statistical source is as I would be very much gladdened in my pessimistic heart.... a heart that is telling me every day this election will result in a no vote........ to think that the majority of eligible voters returning will be voting yes. Do you have statistics that polled them? Do we k now what numbers they are expected to return in? How do we know the break down of their intentions?

Thirdly, assuming they are eligible, and assuming you have actual statistics that they are a majority yes voting group.... what is disgusting particularly about them voting that way? Would it be less disgusting, to your mind, if they were voting "no"? IF so why?

AnneFrank · 08-05-2018 10:36AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Did they all tell you they were voting No to same sex marriage, too?

why bring this up, totally different vote.

robarmstrong · 08-05-2018 10:36AM

doylefe wrote: »

All those who abandoned ship during the hard times are flying back for the day to vote, and it seems most of them are voting yes.

Disgusting.

Yes, it is absolutely disgusting to travel back to vote (if they even can) to repeal the 8th amendment so that women can have easier access to safe and legal abortion in Ireland.

You are spot on with your remarks.

AnneFrank · 08-05-2018 10:38AM

ELM327 wrote: »

That's what I'd tell him.

Although I'd have more clued in compassionate friends to be fair. The only people I know that are voting no are through commercial connections not personal.

yet the thought of two men together disgusts you,
not much compassion there Elm

wexie · 08-05-2018 10:38AM

ELM327 wrote: »

The only people I know that are voting no are through commercial connections not personal.

That's a very odd thing to say and I have to say I'm intrigued.

What commercial connections (obviously don't expand if you're not comfortable or if it would involve identifying anybody)

Just curious as to what commercial interests would be served with keeping the 8th?

Sofiztikated · 08-05-2018 10:41AM

AnneFrank wrote: »

why bring this up, totally different vote.

A bit of historical context isn't a bad thing.

PlaneSpeeking · 08-05-2018 10:42AM

AnneFrank wrote: »

why bring this up, totally different vote.

Actually I don't believe it is - it's someone's dogmatic views affecting others.

Me not getting medical treatment, my friend not being able to marry.

wexie · 08-05-2018 10:42AM

AnneFrank wrote: »

why bring this up, totally different vote.

AnneFrank wrote: »

yet the thought of two men together disgusts you,
not much compassion there Elm

.....

Sofiztikated · 08-05-2018 10:42AM

wexie wrote: »

That's a very odd thing to say and I have to say I'm intrigued.

What commercial connections (obviously don't expand if you're not comfortable or if it would involve identifying anybody)

Just curious as to what commercial interests would be served with keeping the 8th?

I think he means the people he knows that will vote no are through business connections, not personal connections.

robarmstrong · 08-05-2018 10:42AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Ok people can come to their own conclusion if they believe that the 97% were purely based on mental health being the issue.
Even the architect of the abortion law in question doesn't believe that.

So those people would be speculating, as they have no facts or evidence to go along their conclusion, right?

Guy:Incognito · 08-05-2018 10:43AM

AnneFrank wrote: »

why bring this up, totally different vote.

Trying to control how other people live their lives is always relevant.

Funnily enough. None of the scaremongering front that referendum came true either. The sky hasn't fallen. I was at the wedding of a man and woman a few weeks ago and it was the same as the ones I was at 5 years ago.

8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Comments