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…188189191193194…324

Comments

  • #5702
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    bubblypop wrote: »
    So you understand that no contraception is 100% affective yes?
    If you play, you pay? Sounds like a punishment......... Do you think children should be brought into the world to punish their mothers?

    Its ridiculous. I was in a piggyback race when I was a child, fell off, and broke my collarbone in 2 places.

    If a doctor said, "Well, you knew what you were doing" and refused to treat me, there would be uproar.

    Or if someone burned themselves, would you just say "Well, I told you it was hot" and hope they go off, and be OK?


  • #5703
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    cournioni wrote: »
    Personally, I believe that there is enough contraception out there in order for people stop pregnancy

    And that belief is quite often a mere failure of mathematics on behalf of the person espousing it. The simple fact is that there is a failure rate to all contraception at this time. Even combinations of contraception methods.

    And while those %s seem very small on paper.... the simple fact remains that a small % of a large number..... is itself a large number. Even with a failure rate of 1%, which is actually much lower than the real world failure rate........... we are still going to have a significant quantity of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.
    cournioni wrote: »
    People need to be responsible for their own actions without resorting to taking life away from another living being.

    The issue here is that people seem to think "responsible" means "Do what I would do". It does not. Responsibility, and taking responsibility, means and involves sitting down and evaluating where you are, where you want to be, and what your options are to best get there. And if abortion is the best option for a person then doing so IS taking responsibility.

    So the issue with the anti abortion speaker is not that they want to have people take responsibility for their own actions............ they themselves want to take that responsibility on their behalf.

    You want people to take responsibility? Great. Then give them the options, and stay out of their making their decisions between themselves and their doctors.
    cournioni wrote: »
    I think it’s wrong to take a healthy living beings life away no matter where it is.

    Can I assume therefore that you are at least vegetarian, if not even vegan?
    cournioni wrote: »
    If contraception doesn’t work then I’m afraid it’s a case of “if you play, you pay”.

    Yet very often indeed that is NOT the narrative we use in the rest of our society. We do not run over to injured football players and from our high moral horse tell them we have no interest in treating their injury because "If you play you pay".

    No, generally what we do is realize people do things in their life. And most things can result in unfortunate or unforseen results. And we offer people OPTIONS when they occurs.

    This is what we do and should do in general. So why not here too?
    cournioni wrote: »
    but that is for sex educators to make clear to people.

    Isn't it interesting though that groups historically against abortion are also quite often the groups AGAINST sex education. And things like contraception. Why is that I wonder.

    The fact remains however that many, if not most, people advocating for a choice based abortion ALSO advocate for all the things that would reduce the number of people ever seeking one.

    And that includes better, more comprehensive and significantly EARLIER sex education in places like our schools. Why do you feel people resist such things often?


  • #5704
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Muzzymor wrote: »
    If you believe that an abortion isn't the killing of a child, then why is abortion any harder than any other mundane procedure one can have done to "their body"?

    Oh this is an easy one. The difference is between what I believe, and what the person seeking the abortion believes.

    I believe the fetus at 12/16 weeks is a barely differentiated collection of cells with no sentience and as such there is no coherent basis for why anyone wants to afford it rights or moral and ethical concern.

    But the woman seeking an abortion might be operating under different narratives to me and therefore SHE will find it a very difficult choice, and a very upsetting procedure and event. And then she has to go on and deal with the narratives and judgement of a society heavily punctuated by people who think what she did is somewhere between wrong, and murderously illegal.
    Muzzymor wrote: »
    It suggests that deep down, in a place beyond soundbytes and politics and posturing, call it their heart or their gut or whatever, in a place where we all know what is right and what is wrong, even abortion rights proponents believe that abortion is the ending of a life, the killing of a baby.

    OR it suggests that even when we know something is not true, if we have had narratives and ideas hammered into us over long periods of our life.... their residue can still remain. But living in a society where those narratives are constantly out there, and people are celebrating pregnancy all around us.... it can compound that issue. We are also evolved over many centuries to have this instinct to protect our young built into us. And that instinct can misfire as most instincts can. Further most people who pretend not to care what other people think.... generally actually do. And I doubt few women who seek abortion are entirely oblivious or unaffected by the narratives of those that would judge them for it.
    Muzzymor wrote: »
    The fact that people can believe that and still support abortion due to circumstance is chilling.

    And I find the idea that people do not generally seem to want to stop to think about what our values are, where they come from, and what we should value and why..... is chilling. That they would afford moral and ethical concern to something that does not appear to warrant it at all is chilling..... but to do so at the expense of the rights, well being, freedoms and choices of the pregnant woman very much more so.
    Muzzymor wrote: »
    Often people claim that people aborting girls in China etc is wrong, or aborting for superficial reasons is wrong, if someone had 10 abortions people would have a gut reaction to that and all I am asking is why?

    Why not? We as a species are more than capable of judging peoples motivations SEPARATE from their actions. Why do you feel that is any different here?

    For example I believe in your right to eat fast food. I would judge your morality however if you were specifically eating a lot of it in order to get so obese you could claim disability allowance.

    And my judgement of your moral motivations would in NO WAY imply a judgement of your actual action. I would see your goal of obesity as an entirely separate judgement space than your eating fast food. Similarly I would judge the motivation of aborting females entirely separately from the narrative of abortion itself.

    You are implying overlaps where none exist, and conflating things that are entirely separate.
    Muzzymor wrote: »
    I believe that the ending of a life is wrong

    Then what is your view of our meat industry? What about paper, which kills trees. Vegetable industry and all those insects killed by insecticides. Our medical industry which ends the life of things like bacteria in a positive holocaust of billions.

    I think the narrative in play here is exactly backwards. Killing life is what we as humans do all the time. Therefore killing life is not something we need to justify. Rather when we single life out at the individual or group level that is to be protected from that killing...... we should be able to coherently ascertain why.

    And that is exactly what is not being done by the anti abortion speakers on this thread. Why, specifically, should a 12 or 16 week old fetus acquire such protections? Why should such life specifically be or moral or ethical concern to us?
    Muzzymor wrote: »
    I accept that this is too abstract a thought for some.

    I fear the issue is not with it being abstract, but with it being simplistic and poorly thought out. The problem I see is that you are telling us, over a number of posts repeatedly, THAT you think it is wrong. You have not yet once really explained WHY you think so.

    And I fear, like so many before you including even great minds like Christopher Hitchens, that the basis of your position is purely linguistic, rather than based on anything in argument, evidence, data or reason.


  • #5705
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    smartz wrote: »
    I suggested a much looser approach. In any case it could be trialed for a year or two and it would become fairly obvious if the figures were out of line with the estimated rape figures.

    That might work.... only MIGHT.... if there was a 1:1 ration between rape and conception. But there absolutely is not. So trying to line up the number of women seeking abortion..... which right now are only estimates........... with the number of women who have been raped.......... which is also just estimates given not all rape is reported................ would be a fools game.

    You have a naivety that I actually somewhat envy. While I think I generally have a positive and optimistic faith in human beings and humanity.... I know if you incentivise doing the wrong thing.... people will often do the wrong thing.

    And if you offer women access to abortion in Ireland based on, say, ticking a Yes/no box on the application form........ and the alternative is the time, money, resources, effort, loneliness and medical risks of traveling to the UK............ then I believe the likelihood of them ticking that box is MASSIVELY higher than you seem to believe.


  • #5706
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,780 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    cournioni wrote: »
    Rape is another reason why I’m undecided.

    If contraception doesn’t work then I’m afraid it’s a case of “if you play, you pay”. Unfortunate reality for people, but that is for sex educators to make clear to people. Not enough people in this country are accountable for their actions whether in work, life or in bed, they need to be.

    But why allow rape victims a chance to access a health service but not others? I mentioned this a few pages back. You can't imagine refusing someone who cut themselves by accident access to medical care because it's their fault. Or someone who smokes doesn't get cancer treatment. Stop someone who was drinking when they injured themselves from getting treatment?

    This is the only case where this is an acceptable approach and I don't get it. It's a case of people thinking a pregnant woman should pay (your words), should be punished, for getting pregnant.


  • Advertisement
  • #5707
    reubenreuben
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭reubenreuben


    Where I am living, a small village. There were a balance of yes and no posters up around the place yesterday.

    Today, all the yes posters are gone, replaced with more no posters.

    This reflects badly on the no campaigners.

    Do we live in a democracy or not?

    And what does it have to do with britain anyway , majority of the posters blabbering on about england this and britain that and how bad it is over there.
    It's about Ireland isn't it??


  • #5708
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    reubenreuben wrote: »
    Where I am living, a small village. There were a balance of yes and no posters up around the place yesterday.

    Today, all the yes posters are gone, replaced with more no posters.

    This reflects badly on the no campaigners.

    Do we live in a democracy or not?

    And what does it have to do with britain anyway , majority of the posters blabbering on about england this and britain that and how bad it is over there.
    It's about Ireland isn't it??

    We ship our problem to England, so people get high off saying "Well, we're not like them."


  • #5709
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Muzzymor wrote: »
    you can draw a line at the status of a 12 week foetus and declare it not a living human worthy of rights, despite the fact that the only reason it won't have all those things you mentioned is if we kill it. I can't.

    But you do have to draw a line somewhere.

    Today in law we have two lines: birth is when the law recognizes that a new person appears - we all know that is just a line, no magic happens, and it could happen a week earlier or later and the biology would be the same.

    The other line is implantation, which is a ridiculous line whose only justification is the courts trying to make sense out of the botched wording of the 8th. If you want a real line that means something biologically, it should be fertilization, when the DNA of a new individual is organized. But if we used that line, then IVF and the MAP would be banned, and no-one wants to go there (except the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy). So, the whole "potential human" thing is already out the window - we do not protect potential humans, nor should we.

    If fertilized cells not to be protected (and they are not today), why is a 6 week embryo protected? If we are not protecting potential humans, when does an actual human appear? Opinions differ, but it certainly isn't as early as 12 weeks.


  • #5710
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,742 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    So if the referendum was about overturning the 13th Amendment (the freedom to travel), how would you vote in that?

    And bear in mind, I'm not asking you if you think it's possible to stop women having abortions abroad, I'm asking you if you want to remove the barrier to stopping women having abortions abroad if or when it is possible to do so.

    If you think it's wrong to take a healthy living beings life away, no matter where it is, then presumably you'd vote in favour of repaling the 13th, yes?
    Again, a complicated one. I am all for freedom of travel, but I am not in favour of someone taking anothers life unnecessarily. There would need to be no grey areas in order for me to agree with it.

    Why ALL of the focus on the woman rather than the include both parents and the child by the way? The whole point of the 8th amendment is to protect the childs rights too, are you in favour of taking their rights away?
    NuMarvel wrote: »
    So if you picked up an STI during sex, you're saying you'd never go to a doctor to get it treated? You'd simply accept it as the "price" of "playing"? I find that hard to believe.

    And before you say it, I'm not comparing STIs and pregnancy, I'm challenging your "you play, you pay" view and wondering if you'd practice what you'd preach.
    But you did compare it to an STI. It is a human life. Think about that. People need to show some accountability for their actions rather than resorting to taking the life of another.

    Even if it is unwanted, there are options of adoption, foster care etc. I know plenty of people who have adopted and been adopted and they have lived perfectly normal lives. I am concerned that if the 8th Amendment is repealed, similar lives would not exist.

    To answer your question, if I have sex and I have a child on the way, I would do my utmost to see that it lives the best life it possibly can, whether the mother is in my life or not.


  • #5711
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    cournioni wrote: »

    Why ALL of the focus on the woman rather than the include both parents and the child by the way?

    Because the 8th affects the woman.


  • Advertisement
  • #5712
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    cournioni wrote: »
    AI am all for freedom of travel, but I am not in favour of someone taking anothers life unnecessarily.

    The 13th amendment is not about a general freedom to travel.

    It is specifically an exception in article 40.3.3, an explicit freedom to travel for an abortion.


  • #5713
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,742 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    bubblypop wrote: »
    So you understand that no contraception is 100% affective yes?
    If you play, you pay? Sounds like a punishment......... Do you think children should be brought into the world to punish their mothers?
    Abstinence is.

    Who said anything about a punishment? I was referring to people being accountable for their actions.

    Do you think that unborn should have their lives taken from them because two people decided to have some fun and ended up creating a child?


  • #5714
    reubenreuben
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭reubenreuben


    cournioni wrote: »
    Abstinence is.

    Who said anything about a punishment? I was referring to people being accountable for their actions.

    Do you think that unborn should have their lives taken from them because two people decided to have some fun and ended up creating a child?

    Have you been watching The Handmaid's Tale?


  • #5715
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,742 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    The 13th amendment is not about a general freedom to travel.

    It is specifically an exception in article 40.3.3, an explicit freedom to travel for an abortion.
    So then you'll know that I don't agree with it in cases where the child is perfectly healthy.


  • #5716
    citygal93
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76 ✭✭citygal93


    cournioni wrote: »
    Abstinence is.

    Do you think that unborn should have their lives taken from them because two people decided to have some fun and ended up creating a child?

    Conception isn't always the result of two people "deciding to have some fun". We all know this yet the 8th doesn't allow for exceptions to be made in these circumstances or any.


  • #5717
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,742 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    reubenreuben wrote: »
    Have you been watching Handmaids Tale?
    Reuben reuben. Thats a good form of abstinence.


  • #5718
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    cournioni wrote: »
    Abstinence is.

    Who said anything about a punishment? I was referring to people being accountable for their actions.

    Do you think that unborn should have their lives taken from them because two people decided to have some fun and ended up creating a child?


    Even abstinence isn't 100%. A woman can remain abstinent, and still have someone force themselves on her.

    But if you are saying that, if I don't want children with my wife, I must stay abstinent with her, until death or separation? Catch yourself on.

    And accountability for you is going through with the pregnancy. Accountability and responsibility for another is not bringing a child into the world when they can't/don't have the means to support it.


  • #5719
    Dressing gown
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 212 ✭✭Dressing gown


    The difference between a foetus and another part of the mothers body is DNA. The other parts of her body are all exclusively her DNA. The Foetus and placenta are a combination of DNA from the mother and DNA from the father. So it is totally different to all of the other parts of her body.

    There’s the scientific difference and it has ethical consequences. Everyone has their own moral code so hence the difference you keep asking about.


  • #5720
    reubenreuben
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭reubenreuben


    cournioni wrote: »
    Reuben reuben. Thats a good form of abstinence.

    Can moderators be reported for trolling?


  • #5721
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    reubenreuben wrote: »
    Can moderators be reported for trolling?

    To be honest, I doubt he's trolling, just ignorant.


  • Advertisement
  • #5722
    erica74
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭erica74


    cournioni wrote: »
    Even if it is unwanted, there are options of adoption, foster care etc.

    If a woman wants an abortion, she no longer wants to be pregnant so adoption isn't an option because she doesn't want to continue with her pregnancy.

    You have to laugh at people talking about contraception and implying that people who get pregnant are stupid and don't know how to use contraception properly. When in reality, the people who don't understand that contraception is not 100% effective are the ones who don't actually understand how contraception works.


  • #5723
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,742 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    citygal93 wrote: »
    Conception isn't always the result of two people "deciding to have some fun". We all know this yet the 8th doesn't allow for exceptions to be made in these circumstances or any.
    Exactly, like I have explained before, I am undecided about certain things. Rape being one of them.

    However, the Yes side are completely ignoring the right to life of the child from what I can see.


  • #5724
    reubenreuben
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭reubenreuben


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    To be honest, I doubt he's trolling, just ignorant.

    I would have thought Boards.ie would have a higher standard when choosing moderators.


  • #5725
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,742 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    erica74 wrote: »
    If a woman wants an abortion, she no longer wants to be pregnant so adoption isn't an option because she doesn't want to continue with her pregnancy.

    You have to laugh at people talking about contraception and implying that people who get pregnant are stupid and don't know how to use contraception properly. When in reality, the people who don't understand that contraception is not 100% effective are the ones who don't actually understand how contraception works.
    And what about the child?


  • #5726
    erica74
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭erica74


    cournioni wrote: »
    And what about the child?

    What child?


  • #5727
    Dressing gown
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 212 ✭✭Dressing gown


    In law, theft is theft, robbery is robbery, rape is rape and murder is murder. Saying theft is rape does not make it so. Saying abortion is murder does not make it so. You can believe all you want, but that is the law of the land.

    We are voting on the law here. Voting no will not make abortion murder. And it won’t stop it from happening. It just means the 8th amendment which helps no one and only causes suffering will remain. When you break it down to pure logic retaining it makes no sense.


  • #5728
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,159 ✭ [Deleted User]


    cournioni wrote: »
    And what about the child?

    A foetus in early pregnancy does not equal a child. Please inform yourself about the medical facts.


  • #5729
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,382 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Macha wrote: »
    So then we're back to advocating abstinence. I have had a hellish three years with my son born with a birth anomaly, ten full hospitalisations and countless trips to A&E when he's not breathing properly, both parents having treatment for cancer and my mother dying last year. Oh, and I had a missed miscarriage last year. I see one therapist to save my sanity and my partner and I see another to save our relationship. If I were to have a crisis pregnancy, I would crack up, stop functioning. My relationship would end and my son would not get the support from me that he needs, also to make sure he gets the medical care he needs. In the middle of all this, I should tell my partner that we should stop with the only moments we share where we feel normal and close?

    Would I be a 'hard case'? Does my relationship matter? Does my son's quality of life matter? Do I matter?

    I'd appreciate a reply, cournioni, if possible. Would I qualify for you?

    Do you know what it's like having to stop yourself from crying but instead have to be calm because your baby is screaming when they try to put an IV in his wrist or ankle but it takes them 30 minutes because it's harder with babies? And to do that countless times? Do you know what it's like to have to have your baby vomit so many times in one night from coughing fits you run out of pyjamas and sheets for his bed? Do you know what it's like to have your baby cry every time he sees a nurse? Do you know what it's like to have to call an ambulance because your baby is coughing up blood or choking on a piece of fruit? Do you know what it's like to have an exhausted, dehydrated baby cling to you while you shout down the corridor for a nurse because Crumlin hospital wards have no bloody call bells? Do you know what it's like to do this THREE weeks after you mother has died?

    No, you don't. You don't know me or what my life is like. You can't make these decisions for me, or for other women. It's all fine discussing it in the abstract but life is messy and ****ty and hard and it doesn't always work out the way you hope or expect. An abortion is the last thing in the world I want but if I need one to save my health, my life or my sanity, I want to know I can get one.


  • #5730
    citygal93
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76 ✭✭citygal93


    cournioni wrote: »
    Exactly, like I have explained before, I am undecided about certain things. Rape being one of them.

    So if you agree that the 8th is unworkable in some circumstances then why vote no? We know that the 8th will not be amended for certain circumstances as it would be a legal minefield.

    And, with all due respect, voting no will not stop those abortions that you do not agree with. Women will still travel and order illegal pills online, facing a 14 year prison sentence. Are you going to personally stop me, my sisters, or my daughter from procuring an abortion? Are you going to report us to An Garda Síochána?


  • Advertisement
  • #5731
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    cournioni wrote: »
    Again, a complicated one. I am all for freedom of travel, but I am not in favour of someone taking anothers life unnecessarily. There would need to be no grey areas in order for me to agree with it.

    Why ALL of the focus on the woman rather than the include both parents and the child by the way? The whole point of the 8th amendment is to protect the childs rights too, are you in favour of taking their rights away?

    The 13th is solely about the woman's rights and freedoms, hence the focus on it in my question. The 13th amendment means that all of the unborn's rights and protections are set to zero once the woman decides to travel for an abortion.

    It doesn't matter what her reasons are, or when she decides to do it; the 13th is clear that being able to travel is more important that the unborn's right to life.

    So if we're fine with a woman having an abortion abroad, how can we then turn around and say she can't have one here? If freedom to travel can override the unborn's rights, why can't bodily integrity, or health, or right to give or withhold consent to medical treatment have the same status?
    cournioni wrote: »
    To answer your question, if I have sex and I have a child on the way, I would do my utmost to see that it lives the best life it possibly can, whether the mother is in my life or not.

    That doesn't answer my question. In fact it evades my question. And I think the reason you're avoiding the question is because you wouldn't apply your own "You play, you pay" philosophy to yourself. If you picked up an STI, even during protected sex, you'd go to a doctor to get it treated. Because, really, who wouldn't?

    I can understand why someone would be opposed to abortion, but a "you play, you pay" attitude is a really poor reasoning for it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement