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

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

1…104105107109110…324

Comments

  • #3182
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Perhaps because one of the arguments being put forward by those on the pro-repeal side of the discussion is that the issue is too complicated to be enshrined in the Constitution.

    In fairness, it's not just repealers who have made that argument. The Attorney General back in 1983 said the same and I think it's fair to say he'd have been qualified to give an opinion on the matter. And it wasn't a case of him expressing a personal view because his alternative, while not perfect, would have avoided many of the problems the 8th has created.


  • #3183
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    eviltwin wrote: »
    It's not SF behind those posters. The group launch was featured on the news, I could be wrong but I seem to remember a FF member was involved.

    Oh I know that, I mean it looks like they're using the tricolour and the nationalist sentiment to try and speak to the population in these areas that Sinn Fein typically do well in!


  • #3184
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,106 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Any chance you ant to respond to the rest?

    Particularly: Do you believe a disagreement between partners on the right to life should be grounds for an abortion?

    If so, how do you reconcile the rights of a Father with this position?
    What are the rights of the father?
    Should the father be allowed enforce a pregnancy?

    NO.
    It's a woman's body and it's a woman's choice.


  • #3185
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,948 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    ....... wrote: »
    So come on, what options would my granny have had?

    Another who didnt read what i said ,
    I understand granny has no option that is clear I said Grand da is a rapist and a pig for his actions and should held responible not the country , Thats the part that offended someone


  • #3186
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Particularly: Do you believe a disagreement between partners on the right to life should be grounds for an abortion?

    I'm genuinely asking, what does this question mean?

    The only way I can read it is "Can I have an abortion, because my partner and I disagree about abortion" but I assume that's not what you mean?


  • Advertisement
  • #3187
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    [Deleted User] wrote: »



    What makes you think they will not? Abortion on demand up to 12 weeks gestation is a hell of a jump from the current position, is it not?



    .

    Not really, we currently have abortion "on demand" but you just have to be able to afford it.

    Do you know why the 12 week unrestricted access is proposed?

    Because trying to wrangle in restrictions that you want to see are not workable. And the data shows that even with a free for all, miniature american flags for some, abortion on tap, the vast vast majority happen before 12 weeks.

    You say you don't trust politicians? Grand, neither do I. But it is far easier to change bad legislation than it is to change bad constitutional amendments.


  • #3188
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    In fairness, it's not just repealers who have made that argument. The Attorney General back in 1983 said the same and I think it's fair to say he'd have been qualified to give an opinion on the matter. And it wasn't a case of him expressing a personal view because his alternative, while not perfect, would have avoided many of the problems the 8th has created.

    I can't even remember his alternative, and I don't have time to look it up right now, because duty calls, again.

    However, I confess to having doubts that any one article in the Constitution would be able to address all the issues effectively, whilst believing that any changes need to remain democratic, hence the need for multiple questions.

    PS: Apologies in advance if I don't manage to get back to this this for a while. Spare time is hard to find, lately.


  • #3189
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,948 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    You just contradicted yourself.
    There would be nothing to be offended by if those comments weren't made. Maybe people (aka AnneFrank) should be a bit more mindful and sensitive to how s/he comes across and then there would be no need to be offended.
    What world do u live in people will always say unsensotive things but its on yourself if your offended or not ,
    And as isaid if u let someone you dont know and will never meet offended you on-line , Thats your own problem


  • #3190
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    However, I do not believe that abortion on demand up to (or potentially, in the future, exceeding?) 12 weeks gestation is acceptable.

    I think it has long been clear THAT you think that. The basis and reasons for thinking it however have remained opaque. It appears you think a 12 week old fetus should have rights. But the reasoning behind that (if any) is similarly opaque.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Perhaps because one of the arguments being put forward by those on the pro-repeal side of the discussion is that the issue is too complicated to be enshrined in the Constitution.

    They are. But notice that I chose my words with a lot of care. I did not say people were pretending it is complex when it is not. I said they were over stating that complexity. Complex it is! But not as complex as many make out.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    If you are referring to me when you mention someone who "ran away", I have this thing called a life

    I do not think I am referring to you or I would have directly made that explicit. But I am not sure to be 100% honest. I just recall that I engaged with a user on this exact point and when I queried him on it he appears to have simply run away. Give me a few minutes to check here.....

    Ok it took 20 seconds. It was a user called Daheff here. Basically he was selling the same "We can not trust the politicians with this" narrative but when queried on what exactly he could plausibly envision the politicians coming up with he came back with nothing. You here today, when confronted with the same query, have come back with nothing.

    And that consistency is telling I feel.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    As to worst case scenario? Abortion on demand.

    Well that kind of begs the question I am actually asking in two ways.

    The first and obvious one, aside from the misleading title of "abortion on demand" which should more accurately by "choice based abortion", is that you have offered no argument as yet as to why is particularly wrong with that.

    The second however is that we already know the Recommendation is access to abortion up to 12 weeks. The results of the citizens assembly is there for all to see. So that is already what we expect of the politicians pretty much. So you are not actually asking the question I am asking which is that GIVEN we pretty much have a strong expectation, what is the worst case plausible scenario for what the current or future government could THEN do with that.

    How could they, to your mind, enact that expectation poorly, or go beyond it at a later stage? And if they do, what about it would be horrific or problematic given that regardless of whether you give choice based abortion up to 12 weeks, 24 weeks, or with no theoretical legal limits...... everyone pretty much still has the majority of their abortions by week 10 and certainly by week 12, and almost absolutely by week 16?

    So the scare mongering fails on two counts. 1) It seems there is no way they COULD mess up such a recommendation as they are expected to follow, and 2) even if they did it seems no one would actually use it in a way to realize the horrors of their failure.

    Because the way you have answered the question here suggests your issue is not that you DO NOT trust the politicians, but that you DO trust them. In that we pretty much know what we expect them to do, you trust they are actually going to do it, and THAT bothers you. You do trust them it seems, you just do not like what we trust they are actually going to do, which is implement the recommendations from the Citizens Assembly.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I consider what you presumably define as an embryo, as being Human life, from the instant of conception. As such, abortion on demand is a horror.

    I too consider it a "human life" from conception. At least in the context of biology and taxonomy. When I reach the level of discourse rigourously required in things like philosophy, where morals ethics and rights are enshrined, I do not. The failure on your part therefore is to conflate those two versions of "Human life" into one and act like you can extrapolate anything meaningful from that.

    So your entire position on access to abortion appears to be derived from an erroneous conflation.... unless you are willing to make the move of adding more depth and nuance to it than you have done here in this sentence.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I believe the people should have the right to decide on the legislation, and on all the different nuances that need to be considered - and if that means going back to the drawing board, because the current proposed legislation is unacceptable, then so be it.

    I agree in so far as I do not think any law should be written in law for all time, but it should evolve along side the society, the knowledge and the opinions of the peoples to whom it serves. We should ALWAYS "go back to the drawing board" periodically on all laws. Law and morality should be seen as, and treated as, an ongoing discourse.... not Moses like Stone Tablets of objectivity.


  • #3191
    bloodless_coup
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭bloodless_coup


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Oh do me do me.

    That's what she said


  • Advertisement
  • #3192
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    In fairness, it's not just repealers who have made that argument. The Attorney General back in 1983 said the same and I think it's fair to say he'd have been qualified to give an opinion on the matter. And it wasn't a case of him expressing a personal view because his alternative, while not perfect, would have avoided many of the problems the 8th has created.

    Notoriously leftie liberal rainbow wearing abortion mad social justice warriors like THE PRESBYTERIANS said a constitutional amendment was unnecessary back in the 80s.


  • #3193
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Just want to make people aware of a new tactic of the anti-choice side, they're not replying on thread but PMing to discuss the 8th in reply to my posts. Using such terms as 'unborn babies will be ground up and vacuumed out/poisoned'.

    Watch yourselves.


  • #3194
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    doylefe wrote: »
    That's what she said

    So no explanation of why you ignored my post then? No fair, you gave the other user one, even if it was a disingenuous reason. Why can I not have one?
    January wrote: »
    Just want to make people aware of a new tactic of the anti-choice side, they're not replying on thread but PMing to discuss the 8th in reply to my posts. Using such terms as 'unborn babies will be ground up and vacuumed out/poisoned'.

    Watch yourselves.

    Hah they have not tried that one on my yet but there has been a strangely coincidental mass move for pretty much all of them to ignore my posts in general. Which basically seemed to happen all in one day.

    If it does happen, and since you are a MOD yourself, do you know what the rules are on replying to those PMs in thread? Assuming I do not cite the username who sent it to me, is it against the rules to post the content of a PM here, and reply to it publicly? Where are the lines in the sand on what is, or is not, permissible here?


  • #3195
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I think it has long been clear THAT you think that. The basis and reasons for thinking it however have remained opaque. It appears you think a 12 week old fetus should have rights. But the reasoning behind that (if any) is similarly opaque.



    They are. But notice that I chose my words with a lot of care. I did not say people were pretending it is complex when it is not. I said they were over stating that complexity. Complex it is! But not as complex as many make out.



    I do not think I am referring to you or I would have directly made that explicit. But I am not sure to be 100% honest. I just recall that I engaged with a user on this exact point and when I queried him on it he appears to have simply run away. Give me a few minutes to check here.....

    Ok it took 20 seconds. It was a user called Daheff here. Basically he was selling the same "We can not trust the politicians with this" narrative but when queried on what exactly he could plausibly envision the politicians coming up with he came back with nothing. You here today, when confronted with the same query, have come back with nothing.

    And that consistency is telling I feel.



    Well that kind of begs the question I am actually asking in two ways.

    The first and obvious one, aside from the misleading title of "abortion on demand" which should more accurately by "choice based abortion", is that you have offered no argument as yet as to why is particularly wrong with that.

    The second however is that we already know the Recommendation is access to abortion up to 12 weeks. The results of the citizens assembly is there for all to see. So that is already what we expect of the politicians pretty much. So you are not actually asking the question I am asking which is that GIVEN we pretty much have a strong expectation, what is the worst case plausible scenario for what the current or future government could THEN do with that.

    How could they, to your mind, enact that expectation poorly, or go beyond it at a later stage? And if they do, what about it would be horrific or problematic given that regardless of whether you give choice based abortion up to 12 weeks, 24 weeks, or with no theoretical legal limits...... everyone pretty much still has the majority of their abortions by week 10 and certainly by week 12, and almost absolutely by week 16?

    So the scare mongering fails on two counts. 1) It seems there is no way they COULD mess up such a recommendation as they are expected to follow, and 2) even if they did it seems no one would actually use it in a way to realize the horrors of their failure.



    I too consider it a "human life" from conception. At least in the context of biology and taxonomy. When I reach the level of discourse rigourously required in things like philosophy, where morals ethics and rights are enshrined, I do not. The failure on your part therefore is to conflate those two versions of "Human life" into one and act like you can extrapolate anything meaningful from that.

    So your entire position on access to abortion appears to be derived from an erroneous conflation.... unless you are willing to make the move of adding more depth and nuance to it than you have done here in this sentence.



    I agree in so far as I do not think any law should be written in law for all time, but it should evolve along side the society, the knowledge and the opinions of the peoples to whom it serves. We should ALWAYS "go back to the drawing board" periodically on all laws. Law and morality should be seen as, and treated as, an ongoing discourse.... not Moses like Stone Tablets of objectivity.

    As explained previously, I have to keep this brief.

    I consider the unborn - from the instant of conception - to be fully deserving of the right to life.

    I will not apologise for that belief, nor try to change your mind on the fact that you clearly disagree.

    I reserve the right to make my own decision, just as you have the right to make yours.


  • #3196
    Ally Dick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,753 ✭✭✭✭Ally Dick


    ELM327 wrote: »
    What are the rights of the father?
    Should the father be allowed enforce a pregnancy?

    NO.
    It's a woman's body and it's a woman's choice.

    That's a real problem..The mother can go off and murder the child without the father having a say


  • #3197
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,106 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    January wrote: »
    Just want to make people aware of a new tactic of the anti-choice side, they're not replying on thread but PMing to discuss the 8th in reply to my posts. Using such terms as 'unborn babies will be ground up and vacuumed out/poisoned'.

    Watch yourselves.
    Be sure to report the PMs received.
    They would be banned for that too. Surely.


  • #3198
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,914 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Any chance you ant to respond to the rest?

    Particularly: Do you believe a disagreement between partners on the right to life should be grounds for an abortion?

    If so, how do you reconcile the rights of a Father with this position?

    You seem to have invented this position out of whole cloth. I'm not sure i even understand what you are asking.


  • #3199
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,106 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Ally Dick wrote: »
    That's a real problem..The mother can go off and murder the child without the father having a say
    No, the sentence for murder is life.
    However, terminating a pregnancy is not that.

    Legally, you are not a person until you are born. Seriously, man, they give you a certificate and everything!


    And of course, the Irish public voted en masse to allow this, in our constitution, the 12th and 13th amendment. If it's such a problem why are you not campaigning to remove those articles?


  • #3200
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    As explained previously, I have to keep this brief. I consider the unborn - from the instant of conception - to be fully deserving of the right to life.

    I have no problem with brief, even if I am not capable of it myself. But the issue here is not that you are brief, but you are merely restating..... almost word for word..... the very thing I was questioning.

    You do know that if you state X, and a person queries you about X, then simply restating X is not an answer, right?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I will not apologise for that belief, nor try to change your mind on the fact that you clearly disagree.

    Interestingly I did not ask you to do EITHER of those things. I asked for the arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you think you have for that belief. I at no point sought an apology, or an attempt to convince me of it. I just wanted the substance behind it.

    Asking for that substance, and not getting it due to some deflection, is something I am used to for over 25 years of discussing this topic now however. So I will not single you out for persecution for that deflection. It is par for the course.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I reserve the right to make my own decision, just as you have the right to make yours.

    You might want to take that up with someone who suggested otherwise.


  • #3201
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It certainly serves a purpose. As do the other important clauses in the Constitution. It is there to protect the right to life of the unborn, and to ensure that the people decide on any changes.

    Are there issues? Yes. However, I do not believe that abortion on demand up to (or potentially, in the future, exceeding?) 12 weeks gestation is acceptable.

    Why was it necessary to introduce the 8th amendment in the first place?

    The unborn were not under mass threat prior to the intro of the 8th amendment and they won't be after it.
    Meanwhile women in this country have their healthcare compromised by the 8th and the culture it has created, they have their rights violated, and all for what? so some people can feel better by pretending our constitution gives protection to the unborn, when in fact it doesn't because it also says women have a constitutional right to avail of abortion in xyz circumstances and to travel for abortions,

    can you really not see the hypocrisy in that? "The right to life of the unborn is special and worthy of protection unless of course a woman wants to exercise the rights also given to her in the constitution" it's an actual joke, that costs people their lives and their health.

    If you're not happy with the proposed legislation then talk to your local politician about voting against it during dail debates that is what you pay them for, don't hold the women of this country to ransom over something that might not actually happen.
    "oh yeah I'd love to see a situation where women didn't die, weren't mistreated and were treated equally to men, but I can't vote for that because there's a possibility that xyz will happen " (ignoring the fact that there's a very good possibility that xyz won't in fact happen.)

    Do you believe that women have a right to bodily autonomy? not including abortion


  • Advertisement
  • #3202
    erica74
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭erica74


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Any chance you ant to respond to the rest?

    Particularly: Do you believe a disagreement between partners on the right to life should be grounds for an abortion?

    If so, how do you reconcile the rights of a Father with this position?

    I didn't read your original post in which you posed this question so maybe I'm picking you up wrong, are you asking if a couple have a disagreement about something, is this reason enough to have an abortion?

    What rights over a foetus do you believe any father has now compared to if the 8th is repealed?
    This comes down to biology, the woman has the womb, she carries the baby, the final decision is hers, that's that.


  • #3203
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #3204
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #3205
    bloodless_coup
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭bloodless_coup


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    So no explanation of why you ignored my post then? No fair, you gave the other user one, even if it was a disingenuous reason. Why can I not have one?

    Your post must have been not very good because I can't recall it.


  • #3206
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    Ally Dick wrote: »
    That's a real problem..The mother can go off and murder the child without the father having a say

    Similarly, the woman can keep the pregnancy, even if the father wants her to go and "murder" it.

    And I happen to know of more lads that want **** all to do with a child than I do women.


  • #3207
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    doylefe wrote: »
    Your post must have been not very good because I can't recall it.

    That is even more of a cop out than the "abuse" one. But I can remind you in all of 10 seconds effort here.

    Of course if you did reply to it, and I simply missed it, you have my apology. Merely link me to the reply I missed.


  • #3208
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,807 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Where do we give politicians the right to declare war on other Countries?

    Hmm. Social legislation that the majority find abhorrent?

    Why do you use the word social? Please define what you mean.

    Well it (war) is not expressly catered for or forbidden by the constitution afaik, so therefore its a matter for parliament. Who else would decide?

    I used the word social to separate it from say economic legislation (i.e., a PAYE increase in the budget) that a majority may not like but a government would still impose.

    But to be honest it's now clear from your other posts that you are just using 'the politicians may change it to who knows what' as a blind, as you've admitted that 12 weeks is already too much for you anyway.
    Which is a perfectly ok position to have, but makes it pointless for me to continue to debate the in's and out's of what future governments may do.


  • #3209
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,106 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Guys I'm in tears reading the comments on that crowdfunding thing.
    I've been there. I've held a woman's hand through the process. I know (as far as a male friend can) how it feels.

    This comment is so poignant. It's not mine or anyone I know. But if you're reading this and it's yours, my heart goes out to you. You and every other woman we've exported since 1983
    I don’t want to live in a country that chooses lies and limits my autonomy. That puts fear ahead of compassion. And because nobody should travel in fear or bleed alone feeling unloved and hated in a Ryanair toilet.


  • #3210
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #3211
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    It's not actually. You cannot publicly post PM's.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement