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

Sofiztikated · 14-05-2018 09:51AM

cournioni wrote: »

And what about the child?

The child that hadn't yet formed, has no consciousness, and completely and utterly unaware as to what's happening?

Ave Sodalis · 14-05-2018 09:53AM

cournioni wrote:

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

Absolutely not. We just place greater value on the born women, than the potential inside her.

looksee · 14-05-2018 10:02AM

No voters, if there were a situation where a person intending to travel to get an abortion agreed not to have one provided you yourself take on caring for the child when born, whether healthy or not, would you take it on? Or are your first thoughts, ah well, I couldn't because... Its not my responsibility... why should I? Lets assume for a moment that the actual pregnancy is not an issue, though granted that is rather more unlikely.

It is quite likely that the 'fault' of being pregnant is not with the pregnant woman either, for any number of reasons. Or say a mother of several children finds that the pregnancy is going to result in a child who will require full time nursing for however long they survive, maybe a year, maybe 20 or 30 years. She realises that she physically cannot stretch that far. Maybe already one of her other children is a child needing full time care, would you take it and dedicate your life to it. If not, why not?

Or, if you like, take the drama out of it, a woman becomes pregnant with a child that she cannot cope with, for whatever reason, probably illness (hers or the child's), but because of your opinion, she has it anyway. Why would you not volunteer to turn up every day and help her out for a few hours? You have to work? Well in the evenings then. You have kids to care for/other issues or responsibilities? So has she. You need a bit of time for yourself? Ah, now we are talking luxury that she does not have. But that's her problem, right?

Not my problem, I just get to dictate her life, after that she is on her own.

Zubeneschamali · 14-05-2018 10:04AM

cournioni wrote: »

So then you'll know that I don't agree with it in cases where the child is perfectly healthy.

So you're with the Judge Hederman wing of extremists. Fortunately you were in a minority even back in 1992:

The State therefore can be obliged to take positive action to intervene to prevent an imminent destruction of life and one obvious way is by a restraining order directed to any person who is threatening the destruction of the unborn life where known to the State. That can include restraint of the mother of the child where she is the person or one of the persons threatening the continued survival of the life. In such a case the most appropriate person to move for such restraint is the Attorney General.

...

If there is a suicidal tendency then this is something which has to be guarded against. If this young person without being pregnant had suicidal tendencies due to some other cause then nobody would doubt that the proper course would be to put her in such care and under such supervision as would counteract such tendency and do everything possible to prevent suicide.

Bannasidhe · 14-05-2018 10:05AM

Overheal wrote: »

“Oh darn I was raped. Bamboozled again.”

The charitable explanation for your comment is that you do not realise the context of this photograph.
The uncharitable is that you are a being a complete cretin and are knowingly mocking a rape victim.

Either way, your comment is appalling.

Zubeneschamali · 14-05-2018 10:07AM

cournioni wrote: »

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

There is no child.

As for the right to life of the unborn, it was created out of nothing in 1983 by Binchy and his friends, and it has been a cause of endless trouble ever since.

We are not ignoring it, we have been trying to abolish it for 35 years. That is the whole point.

NuMarvel · 14-05-2018 10:07AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Absolutely not. We just place greater value on the born women, than the potential inside her.

And most Yes voters (here anyway) are in favour of the proposed legislation, which maintains protections for the unborn. It just doesn't apply them in an as absolutist manner as the 8th does, and takes into account the rights of the woman as well.

cournioni · 14-05-2018 10:09AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So you're with the Judge Hederman wing of extremists. Fortunately you were in a minority even back in 1992:

The State therefore can be obliged to take positive action to intervene to prevent an imminent destruction of life and one obvious way is by a restraining order directed to any person who is threatening the destruction of the unborn life where known to the State. That can include restraint of the mother of the child where she is the person or one of the persons threatening the continued survival of the life. In such a case the most appropriate person to move for such restraint is the Attorney General.

...

If there is a suicidal tendency then this is something which has to be guarded against. If this young person without being pregnant had suicidal tendencies due to some other cause then nobody would doubt that the proper course would be to put her in such care and under such supervision as would counteract such tendency and do everything possible to prevent suicide.

Interesting that this judge did not suffer the extreme pedantry for the use of the world child.

As bad as some of the No voters are, some of the Yes voters aren't exactly showing themselves to be shining lights on here either.

Nothing extreme about me, but I think that taking the life of a perfectly healthy living being is wrong in the extreme.

Ave Sodalis · 14-05-2018 10:12AM

cournioni wrote:

Nothing extreme about me, but I think that taking the life of a perfectly healthy living being is wrong in the extreme.

Even if it zaps the health of the born? I don't just mean the mother, but similar to Macha's situation where the whole family would be affected.

swampgas · 14-05-2018 10:13AM

cournioni wrote: »

Nothing extreme about me, but I think that taking the life of a perfectly healthy living being is wrong in the extreme.

When you look at how the 8th affects women's healthcare, you might start to understand why many people think keeping the 8th is an extreme position to hold.

You are fixated on the unborn. You seem to have no comprehension as to how the 8th affects the born.

reubenreuben · 14-05-2018 10:14AM

cournioni wrote: »

Interesting that this judge did not suffer the extreme pedantry for the use of the world child.

As bad as some of the No voters are, some of the Yes voters aren't exactly showing themselves to be shining lights on here either.

Nothing extreme about me, but I think that taking the life of a perfectly healthy living being is wrong in the extreme.

Keeping the baby alive at all costs then? That's basically what you are saying.

That is extreme!

cournioni · 14-05-2018 10:15AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Absolutely not. We just place greater value on the born women, than the potential inside her.

Why? What is wrong with equality?

Sofiztikated · 14-05-2018 10:16AM

cournioni wrote: »

Interesting that this judge did not suffer the extreme pedantry for the use of the world child.

As bad as some of the No voters are, some of the Yes voters aren't exactly showing themselves to be shining lights on here either.

Nothing extreme about me, but I think that taking the life of a perfectly healthy living being is wrong in the extreme.

I think the pedantry was superseded by the fact he was calling for people be held against their will, and forced to give birth.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-05-2018 10:17AM

cournioni wrote: »

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

Might be because the idea a 12 week old fetus should have any rights in the first place is one that no one appears capable of supporting..... while similarly they are unclear what right they think the other parent even has in this context?

The former is a philosophical problem. If we want to assign rights to something we need a coherent set of reasoning as to why. Other than the misuse of words like "child"...... why is it people like yourself are not actually moving to discuss this concern? i have come to suspect the answer is that you know as well as I do that no such arguments exist. When you start to communicate in sound bites like "What about the child" you seem not to realize this is a question for YOU yourself. What about it? What about the fetus? Because right now the only coherent answer to "What about the child" is "there is none".

The latter I think is a linguistic problem. I suspect people are conflating "rights" as in actual rights with basic etiquette and emotional concerns. I fear the latter is likely being validated but people talk the talk of the former. What "rights" specifically do you feel the other parent has or should have, that are being violated specifically.

cournioni wrote: »

Even if it is unwanted, there are options of adoption, foster care etc.

Regale me as I am actually quiet ignorant on this point. If I as a healthy male, conceived with a healthy female, and we produced a healthy child........... what are the steps I would have to engage in to access, and achieve, the move of putting that child up for adoption.

The reason I ask is A) I am genuinely ignorant of what it would entail and

quite a few users on this thread have indicated it is actually NOT the option you pretend it to be. And that in fact putting such a child up for adoption is in fact somewhere between incredibly hard and actively impossible.

But due to my ignorance of the topic, I am happy to be educated on it. School me!

cournioni wrote: »

I know plenty of people who have adopted and been adopted and they have lived perfectly normal lives.

Amazing how different people can have different experience isn't it? Through my social life, work, education, clubs, political activism and much more I have met many many people. More, I suspect, than average by far. Yet I am not aware of having met a single adopted person ever.

Yet somehow you know "plenty". Not one or a few. But plenty. From a purely statistical perspective I am genuinely curious how this comes about.

cournioni wrote: »

I am concerned that if the 8th Amendment is repealed, similar lives would not exist.

Does contraception concern you then or is your concern for "Lives that would not exist" more a cherry picked one? After all I suspect the number of people NOT walking around alive today, who otherwise would have been but for the fact we legalized contraception not all that long ago................ is quite a significant number. Probably, I wonder, much higher a number than the estimated 5000/years abortion is held accountable for.

It concerns me when people pretend to hold a given concern, you see, when in fact they only hold that concern if and when it suits their argument in that moment.

cournioni wrote: »

Abstinence is.

And what, out of curiosity, is your knowledge from a statistical perspective about areas which have implemented abstinence approaches to sex and sexuality in this world?

And how reasonable an expectation do you in fact thing abstinence even is in the various human relationship dynamics we have in our world?

And since abstinence also fails.... how prepared in terms of things like sexual knowledge, experience, contraception and so forth...... do you think a person exercising abstinence even is during a sexual encounter? Compared to, say, someone who is actively expecting, seeking, or open to sexual expression and experience in any given moment?

I genuinely do not think you have thought that one through too deeply at all.

cournioni wrote: »

Interesting that this judge did not suffer the extreme pedantry for the use of the world child.

The issue should never really be what words are used, but why they are used and what they are taken to mean when they are used.

In most contexts I would have no linguistic issue, let alone a pedantic one, about the fallacious use of the word "Child".

But when the word is specifically misused in order to manufacture attributes and concerns that are not even there........ it becomes a concern. And raising that concern is anything but pedantic.

cournioni · 14-05-2018 10:17AM

reubenreuben wrote: »

Keeping the baby alive at all costs then? That's basically what you are saying.

That is extreme!

I never said that at all. What are you talking about? I said the taking of a healthy life is wrong in the extreme.

Ave Sodalis · 14-05-2018 10:17AM

cournioni wrote:

Why? What is wrong with equality?

Because one does not equal the other.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-05-2018 10:18AM

reubenreuben wrote: »

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

Hah you must not read the same areas of the forum I post on then

3 of the top 5 forums I have posted on have or have had very poorly chosen users. I think you get what you pay for. And most moderators are unpaid volunteers. And every bit as human, and prone to failure, as the rest of us

But to answer your question, any moderator can be reported yes. Especially while posting in a forum they are not the moderator of.... where they are in fact a user like any other.

cournioni · 14-05-2018 10:19AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Because one does not equal the other.

Why not?

Zubeneschamali · 14-05-2018 10:20AM

cournioni wrote: »

Interesting that this judge did not suffer the extreme pedantry for the use of the world child.

Since he advocated X-case style injunctions to prevent pregnant women travelling and locking pregnant women up on suicide watch until they deliver, his choice of the word "child" was the least of the problems civilized people had with his dissenting opinion.

Sofiztikated · 14-05-2018 10:20AM

cournioni wrote: »

Why? What is wrong with equality?

When that equality puts one part in direct risk due to the presence of another, its not equal.

A living breathing human being is equal to another. A child in potentia? Not so much.

I can't force someone to go through what I think they should do.

swampgas · 14-05-2018 10:20AM

cournioni wrote: »

Why? What is wrong with equality?

It's not equality in practice. Tell me how denying a woman who is 8 weeks pregnant an abortion because she has cancer and needs to start treatment is any kind of equality?

The 8th is blind to pain, suffering and quality of life. All it cares about is whether you are alive or not.

A pregnant woman could be left paralysed and blind because of her pregnancy, the pregnancy could be for a child that will only live for a few months, but the 8th doesn't care.

The 8th says keeping a foetus alive regardless of the quality of its potential life is more important than the health of a woman.

It's actually barbaric.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-05-2018 10:20AM

cournioni wrote: »

Why? What is wrong with equality?

I suspect it is not so much equality, but pretending things are equal that are not, which people have an issue with.

NuMarvel · 14-05-2018 10:21AM

cournioni wrote: »

Nothing extreme about me, but I think that taking the life of a perfectly healthy living being is wrong in the extreme.

And yet, when asked if you'd remove the constitutional protection that women have to do this abroad, you hesitated. And you're at least considering an exception for rape (which the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre have spoken out against, by the way). That shows you don't consider abortion to be that extreme.

Between travel and pills, it's estimated that nearly 5000 Irish women and girls had abortions in 2016. That's nearly 5000 "perfectly healthy living beings" whose lives are taken, as you would put it.

The reality is that women have abortions. They will keep having abortions. A No vote won't stop that. But a Yes vote will at least mean those abortions are earlier, and with less risk.

reubenreuben · 14-05-2018 10:24AM

cournioni wrote: »

I never said that at all. What are you talking about? I said the taking of a healthy life is wrong in the extreme.

That statement is extreme in itself.

BabysCoffee · 14-05-2018 10:24AM

cournioni wrote: »

Why not?

Because one is a woman - someone who is loved by their partner, family, friends, children.

And the other is not.

Why do you think they are equal?

wexie · 14-05-2018 10:24AM

Dressing gown wrote: »

When you break it down to pure logic retaining it makes no sense.

Ah and there we have the crux of the problem, one side of this debate is arguing from logic the other side from emotion....

Overheal · 14-05-2018 10:27AM

cournioni wrote: »

This is the thing that leaves most people undecided and everyone’s opinion is different on it.

Personally, I believe that there is enough contraception out there in order for people stop pregnancy without the need for taking away the life of a perfectly healthy unborn. People need to be responsible for their own actions without resorting to taking life away from another living being.

Respectfully, that’s just not the case. Contraceptives aren’t 100% effective - even with perfect use, which is the idealists scenario.

January was just on the thread yesterday sharing her story of trying to seek Tubal Ligation (female sterility) But was dragged through the mud by doctors in Ireland telling her she was too young, “what if you change your mind” etc. despite having 4 kids already and having already had 2 cesarian births. One doctor even asked her “but what if you divorce your husband maybe you’ll want to have kids with your next lover” - these are the obstacles Irish women face when trying to seek contraceptive methods. She was told alright go lose 4 stone and we will consider the surgery - within a month her regular birth control method failed and she became pregnant again. This whole episode developed over he course of a year, she started talking with doctors about it right after her 4th.

Zubeneschamali · 14-05-2018 10:27AM

cournioni wrote: »

What is wrong with equality?

Given the choice between saving my wife and saving her unborn "child", I will choose her every time, no hesitation, no question.

Because their rights to life are not equal, no matter what the 8th pretends.

Ave Sodalis · 14-05-2018 10:38AM

cournioni wrote: »

Why not?

Due to the current effect it has. Alive is the standard. Quality of life is not taken into account, and even alive just means until the end of the pregnancy. So if there's a chance the woman might survive without treatment until the end of a pregnancy, then treatment will be stopped. This is regardless if the mother will die shortly after due to the lack of treatment. How is this equality?

If possible, seriously think about what you would do if something happens to your wife during pregnancy. Would you rather the wife live and be healthy, or a 12 week old foetus? It really is a choice between the two and that is why is can never be equal.

dudara · 14-05-2018 10:38AM

cournioni wrote: »

Why? What is wrong with equality?

The 8th tried to make the life of the foetus equal to the life of the mother, unless her life was in danger. However, it has not worked, it has resulted in a situation where the foetus actually takes precedence, not an equal position. The mother becomes second place, unless she's dying.

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

Comments