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…108109111113114…324

Comments

  • #3302
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    kylith wrote: »
    It highlights that Irish women haven’t had a choice in reproduction possibly since Brehon law.

    Actually, I tell a lie. Many ancient saints, including Brigid, listed making pregnancies miraculously vanish among their miracles.


  • #3303
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    ASISEEIT wrote: »
    Basically this debate comes down to the following- do you accept or reject fact that the life in the womb is a baby and thus worthy of prorection.

    Its a baby when its born and/or can survive independently of the woman. Pre 12 weeks its either a zygote or a fetus.
    Its not about whether you want the child or not. There are unwanted children in the world and we don't shoot them because of that.
    Not wanting a child is a very good reason not to have one imo.
    Rape and fatal foetal anomalies are side issues. Pregnancies by rape are statitically small. If however you passed a law allowing abortion for just that i would support it because of the non consent issue. The rest of us humping and bumping know the consequences

    Children should not be belittled into consequences to bestow on allegedly careless people. They should be adored and treasured and wanted and not used to punish people who should have been more careful. It hardly has the childs best interests at heart to follow that line of thinking.
    There is no accepted medical term for FFA so no law could be designed to allow it but we can't slaughter others to satisty a tiny miniority. If we made laws like that we would ban a huge amount of stuff

    What a disgusting comment. Choosing to terminate because of FFA would be a much wanted pregnancy, and done so in heartbreaking circumstances.
    The parents are hardly seeking a late termination for their ill baby for the sport of it.
    Shame on you.
    Adoption is a real option and people should realise the law has radically changed. Its no longer a case of no contact with your child if you put him or her up for adoption

    Adoption laws make it near impossible to put babies up for adoption.
    35 years have passed since the 8th was put in place to improve these laws. It hasn't happen. Changing these laws in the future is of no help to a woman having a crisis right now.
    And its of no use to a woman who cannot or will not gestate a pregnancy.
    The bodily integrity argument is bull because if taken to logical conclusion would permit prostitution,self harm and heroin addiction
    I cant support anything that would allow a doctor to scrap out arms,legs and skull of a baby . End of story . 12 weeks my backside. Proposed law allows that to be extended under circumstances and we know what happened in England after 1967

    Easy for you to dismiss the lack of importance of bodily autonomy when it isn't you who will personally have to suffer the consequences or take the risks.
    There will be no scraping skulls as has previously pointed out.
    Two pills and a heavy period is what will happen.
    So that's just a load of scare mongering hyperbole tbh.


  • #3304
    patrickSTARR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 961 ✭✭✭patrickSTARR


    kylith wrote: »
    It highlights that Irish women haven’t had a choice in reproduction possibly since Brehon law.

    Well _I_ believe that you only get to enforce pregnancy if you are the one who is pregnant.

    Well that is clearly where we disagree. Sure, we are all voting on it and may the best side win.

    Ill still believe what I choose to believe


  • #3305
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    ASISEEIT wrote: »
    Basically this debate comes down to the following- do you accept or reject fact that the life in the womb is a baby and thus worthy of prorection. Its not about whether you want the child or not. There are unwanted children in the world and we don't shoot them because of that.

    Rape and fatal foetal anomalies are side issues. Pregnancies by rape are statitically small. If however you passed a law allowing abortion for just that i would support it because of the non consent issue. The rest of us humping and bumping know the consequences
    There is no accepted medical term for FFA so no law could be designed to allow it but we can't slaughter others to satisty a tiny miniority. If we made laws like that we would ban a huge amount of stuff
    Adoption is a real option and people should realise the law has radically changed. Its no longer a case of no contact with your child if you put him or her up for adoption
    The bodily integrity argument is bull because if taken to logical conclusion would permit prostitution,self harm and heroin addiction
    I cant support anything that would allow a doctor to scrap out arms,legs and skull of a baby . End of story . 12 weeks my backside. Proposed law allows that to be extended under circumstances and we know what happened in England after 1967

    Everything you have posted has been shown to be incorrect.

    Adoption is NOT an alternative to abortion. Especially if you already have, or plan to have, other children.
    patrickSTARR wrote: »
    Why I believe it personally is because its a life in my eyes. I don't believe a life should be terminated if the mother and soon to be child is considered healthy.

    Its a life, its precious, it shouldn't be ended because of its inconvenient.

    Fine, don't have an abortion. There's many that require one. And it'd be available to you, should you ever be in a position to need one.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    https://www.livescience.com/44899-stages-of-pregnancy.html

    Oh, so you're ok with fetus now?


  • #3306
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #3307
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    RobertKK wrote: »
    https://www.livescience.com/44899-stages-of-pregnancy.html

    It's an embryo pre-8 weeks and a foetus after that.

    It's only a baby AFTER it's born.


  • #3308
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,948 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


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

    OMG - you are EOTR arent you?[/quote]
    "OMG" you are 12 aren't you


  • #3309
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #3310
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Vote No for compassion, vote No for healthcare.

    We are voting on whether the unborn lose or keep their right to life, whether we are a compassionate society that values all life, that of lives born and that of lives unborn. Do we have compassion for just some life as the Yes posters advocate or for all life as the No side is for.

    If we place a value on human life, then and nelieve in compassion for all life, that of born lives and the unborn lives, and that all lives should get the required healthcare needed, women and men the required healthcare for their lives, the unborn need their mothers to be healthy, it is not healthcare if healthy unborn lives are being killed by a healthy mother, only extreme people on the Yes side believe that argument.

    The vote yes for compassion and vote yes for healthcare is skewed way of looking at both compassion and healthcare, it is like a horse with blinkers as they don't want to see the unborn and it is why the Yes side are losing ground, they are playing ostrich with unborn lives and pretending they either don't exist or unborn life is worthless and disposable if that is one's choice.


  • #3311
    ASISEEIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 155 ✭✭ASISEEIT


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    The people responsible for arranging adoptions say it isn't. But you know better. The changes were in relation to allowing the courts to allow an adoption even if the mother objects.



    Only if the adoptive parents allow it.



    these things are already happening.




    You need to educate yourself on what is involved in an abortion in the first trimester. there is no scraping involved.

    If the adopted parents want contact means adoption would not happen unless that was agreed. Are you really going to tell me that we wont have abortions after 12 weeks? Really? Come on-come out from behind that tripe
    I still say bodily integrity is a red herring. We dont have unlimited rights over our own bodies.
    The fact that you are getting pedantic over adoption is revealing. Would you prefer to be killed or adopted? I will give you some time to mull that one over. Adoption law can easily be made more accessible. Sure we spent millions giving gay people marriage (even though they had civil partnership already) and before that they got adoption rights. A couple of hours of Dail time would make it even more accessible
    And before people call me anti gay im not. Im just pointing out how quickly the right on brigade can move when its THEIR issue.


  • Advertisement
  • #3312
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #3313
    bloodless_coup
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭bloodless_coup


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    But you are totally on the fence yourself, we get it.

    No I've decided I'm going to vote Yes to keep the amendment.


  • #3314
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    patrickSTARR wrote: »
    Why I believe it personally is because its a life in my eyes. I don't believe a life should be terminated if the mother and soon to be child is considered healthy.

    Its a life, its precious, it shouldn't be ended because of its inconvenient.

    That's fine, I respect your right to hold that belief. When you are personally pregnant, you can choose not to terminate that life because you consider it precious, regardless of the implications.

    Doesn't mean you get to dictate the goings on inside my uterus though.


  • #3315
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    ELM327 wrote: »
    So now you use science?
    Are they not just called "babies" by you at all stages?

    Unborn babies, call them what you want, unborn human lives.

    The fact remains that abortion kills those lives.


  • #3316
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    patrickSTARR wrote: »
    Why I believe it personally is because its a life in my eyes. I don't believe a life should be terminated if the mother and soon to be child is considered healthy.

    Its a life, its precious, it shouldn't be ended because of its inconvenient.

    But as I keep telling people, we as humans end life all the time. Our meat industry does it in the 1000s. Our vegetable industry through insecticides in the 10s or 100s of 1000s. Our medical industry in the billions. Hell even our paper industry in huge numbers.

    Basically your answer is "I think it is precious because I think it is precious"

    So given we can end "life" all the time, if we want to protect one group with a "right to life" we need to identify the attributes and characteristics that define qualification for that protection. And we need to understand WHY we use those attributes and characteristics.

    That it is "precious" to you personally is your subjective emotion. And no one can take that away from you. But in discourse with others, such as myself, perhaps some more intellectual rigor than your own arbitrary emotional leaps is required? Can you actually identify WHY it could be or should be seen as "precious".

    I can. I can identify EXACTLY what (and why) I believe makes some life precious to the point of having "a right to life" while other life does not.

    What is inconvenient for the anti abortion speakers is that what I identify in this way is EXACTLY what a 12 week old fetus lacks. Not slightly lacks. ENTIRELY lacks.

    So again your response falls pray to my slogan. THAT you think it is precious is clear. WHY you do so, is entirely opaque. And rather than answer my question about your position, you have merely re-stated that position slightly differently.


  • #3317
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    patrickSTARR wrote: »
    Well that is clearly where we disagree. Sure, we are all voting on it and may the best side win.

    Ill still believe what I choose to believe

    And I donmt share your belief, so why should you get to force it on me?


  • #3318
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,948 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


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

    hahahaha - I knew I recognised your posting style.

    Ill report it through the proper channels.[/quote]
    Fire ahead ,
    I'v no idea who or what your even on about,


  • #3319
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,106 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Innaccurate and dangerous tripe.
    ASISEEIT wrote: »
    If the adopted parents want contact means adoption would not happen unless that was agreed. Are you really going to tell me that we wont have abortions after 12 weeks? Really? Come on-come out from behind that tripe
    I still say bodily integrity is a red herring. We dont have unlimited rights over our own bodies.
    The fact that you are getting pedantic over adoption is revealing. Would you prefer to be killed or adopted? I will give you some time to mull that one over
    You cannot kill that which does not have sentience and life.
    Killing means to end life.
    Your use of the word "kill" is a red herring.


  • #3320
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #3321
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #3322
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,914 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ASISEEIT wrote: »
    If the adopted parents want contact means adoption would not happen unless that was agreed.

    Not if a judge says otherwise. Which is now possible.
    ASISEEIT wrote: »
    Are you really going to tell me that we wont have abortions after 12 weeks? Really? Come on-come out from behind that tripe

    have you actually bothered to read what has been proposed?

    ASISEEIT wrote: »
    I still say bodily integrity is a red herring. We dont have unlimited rights over our own bodies.
    The fact that you are getting pedantic over adoption is revealing. Would you prefer to be killed or adopted? I will give you some time to mull that one over

    the fact that you keep presenting adoption as a viable option is very telling.


  • #3323
    ASISEEIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 155 ✭✭ASISEEIT


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    It's an embryo pre-8 weeks and a foetus after that.

    It's only a baby AFTER it's born.

    Really so when your mother was pregnant she said Im expecting a foetus? You are one funny guy.


  • #3324
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Vote No for compassion, vote No for healthcare.

    Robert - explain to me how No improves my healthcare ?

    Because currently the 8th Amendment is worsening it.

    I'd like you to tell me how voting No to keep it will improve my healthcare please.


  • #3325
    ASISEEIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 155 ✭✭ASISEEIT


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Not if a judge says otherwise. Which is now possible.



    have you actually bothered to read what has been proposed?




    the fact that you keep presenting adoption as a viable option is very telling.

    Very telling? Telling of what? It is an option and the law doesnt force anybody to give a baby up. Zeroing in on side issues is pointless. The adoption law does allow open adoptions and can be made more accessible . Sure you can do all sorts of things under the law if we decide to do, so getting bogged down in the small print of this or that law takes away from the fact an abortion is deciding not to save a life-not to raise that life or give others the chance to be parents. Sure ,we allow surrogacy and viking sperm donations-so making adoption more accessible should not be a trouble.

    As for whats being proposed-once the referendum has been passed (yes) then the 12 weeks will be pushed out.


  • #3326
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,948 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


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

    Well that has been clear for many posts now, although as you were on "repeat" perhaps the software didnt recognise it.[/quote]
    Meeow


  • #3327
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ASISEEIT wrote: »
    Really so when your mother was pregnant she said Im expecting a foetus? You are one funny guy.

    Shoot yourself in the foot much?

    Women say they are expecting a baby.

    None of them say they HAVE a baby. They say they are EXPECTING one.

    In other words they, like me, recognize that the fetus is NOT ONE NOW. But that it is in the process of becoming one.

    You call PlaneSpeeking a funny guy, while actively actually wholly making his point for him. Seems therefore you are the comedian here. Well done.


  • #3328
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    ASISEEIT wrote: »
    Really so when your mother was pregnant she said Im expecting a foetus? You are one funny guy.

    The key word there is EXPECTING.

    I can say I'm expecting a bus to come along, but until it does, there's no bus.

    When someone says to you "I'm going to be a mother!" do you look around for an infant? When you wife says she's pregnant, do you think "I'm a daddy now," or "I'm going to be a daddy"?

    What might be, is NOT what is present now.


  • #3329
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    ASISEEIT wrote: »
    Really so when your mother was pregnant she said Im expecting a foetus? You are one funny guy.

    They are the scientific terms. And if only I was a guy, I'd be receiving treatment now.


  • #3330
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The vote yes for compassion and vote yes for healthcare is skewed way of looking at both compassion and healthcare, it is like a horse with blinkers as they don't want to see the unborn and it is why the Yes side are losing ground, they are playing ostrich with unborn lives and pretending they either don't exist or unborn life is worthless and disposable if that is one's choice.

    So vote Yes for compassion is like a horse with blinkers playing ostrich with unborn lives?

    Well, that's me convinced!


  • Advertisement
  • #3331
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    ASISEEIT wrote: »
    Very telling? Telling of what? It is an option and the law doesnt force anybody to give a baby up. Zeroing in on side issues is pointless. The adoption law does allow open adoptions and can be made more accessible .

    The majority of women who have an abortion already have a child or children. What is your understanding of how they'd go about adoption as an alternative to abortion please?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement