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

Just her · 17-05-2018 12:27AM

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

There isn't a debate about that, and links to articles on wiki are typical the kind of misguidance going on. I don't see anywhere it was denied it wasn't human.

A foetus cannot live among the living, it needs it's host. To put a foetus on par with someone who can live independent of a host defies logic tbf.

I was replying to a poster who said 'if you really believe a human life is being taken' (in abortion) I presumed it was the 'human' part he/she was taking exception to, I really didn't believe that it was the 'life' part he/she was arguing! A foetus/baby is alive, and human. That is the point I was arguing. How is that misguiding?

Kiwi in IE · 17-05-2018 12:35AM

Sheeps wrote: »

This is another argument I can't reconcile. I think that same argument can be made to justify smoking, drinking and drug use during pregnancy.

Whether someone is pregnant of their own free will, an accident or by force, the situation about free will over your own body is not the same once there's another life involved. I don't agree that a woman should have control over another human life like that simply because it resides inside of her.

So who do you think should police whether women drink/smoke/take drugs when pregnant and how should this be enforced?

A woman DOES have control over a foetus that resides inside her, whether or not you agree. There is no point disagreeing as it is a fact that she has control.

ceadaoin. · 17-05-2018 12:46AM

Sheeps wrote: »

This is another argument I can't reconcile. I think that same argument can be made to justify smoking, drinking and drug use during pregnancy.

Whether someone is pregnant of their own free will, an accident or by force, the situation about free will over your own body is not the same once there's another life involved. I don't agree that a woman should have control over another human life like that simply because it resides inside of her.

Smoking, drinking a lot of alcohol, using drugs, (including those prescribed by a doctor), getting in a car, being obese, getting stressed, breathing in pollution, eating in a restaurant, flying, being around unvaccinated children, leaving the house. These are some things that could potentially cause damage to an unborn child. Should pregnant women be prevented from doing all of them? Where do you draw the line? Maybe forceful hospitalisation for the incubator until the baby is born to ensure correct behaviour?

Overheal · 17-05-2018 12:48AM

Sheeps wrote: »

I don't agree that a woman should have control over another human life like that simply because it resides inside of her.

Incidentally, a lot of people don't agree that Ireland should have control or a woman simply because they reside inside of her.

Sheeps · 17-05-2018 12:51AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So who do you think should police whether women drink/smoke/take drugs when pregnant and how should this be enforced?

A woman DOES have control over a foetus that resides inside her, whether or not you agree. There is no point disagreeing as it is a fact that she has control.

I mean I personally don't think it should be legal for women to smoke, drink or abuse drugs during pregnancy. I'm not offering practical means of enforcement to stop this, but I think it's wrong and if there were a practical means to enforce such a law I'd be in favour of it.

Regardless, I'm not debating the fact that women are in control of their own bodies. What I'm saying is that while there's another life inside of someones body, there needs to be concessions made while another life protected by the constitution is sharing that woman's body in order to survive, whether the pregnancy is wanted or not.

I don't believe a woman's decision should override someone else's right to life simply for the reason that they reside inside of her. Fortunately though, that is not what we're being asked to vote on, as a decision should a woman seek an abortion will be left to a council of qualified doctors and/or a legal framework to decide.

Again my point is I don't buy in to the it's a woman's choice argument, because there is more than one party who has a stake in the outcome.

Wrongway1985 · 17-05-2018 12:53AM

Just her wrote: »

A foetus/baby is alive, and human. That is the point I was arguing. How is that misguiding?

No one said it wasn't human but off you went to prove a point that wasn't there, apologies if I'm mistaken in you're choosing to do that but Marie Steen done something very similar on the debate on newstalk this evening so it's fresh in the mind.

Open to correction from poster but I took it the poster was posing the question regarding actual life. If you believe abortion is on the same level as taking a life (e.g. purposely ran someone over - dead), I dunno maybe you do?

TSQ · 17-05-2018 12:53AM

Sheeps wrote: »

This is another argument I can't reconcile. I think that same argument can be made to justify smoking, drinking and drug use during pregnancy.

Whether someone is pregnant of their own free will, an accident or by force, the situation about free will over your own body is not the same once there's another life involved. I don't agree that a woman should have control over another human life like that simply because it resides inside of her.

Just has to be a man who posted this. « simply because it's resides inside of her". I am pinching myself to make sure I am not just dreaming that I read this

Sheeps · 17-05-2018 12:53AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Smoking, drinking a lot of alcohol, using drugs, (including those prescribed by a doctor), getting in a car, being obese, getting stressed, breathing in pollution, eating in a restaurant, flying, being around unvaccinated children, leaving the house. These are some things that could potentially cause damage to an unborn child. Should pregnant women be prevented from doing all of them? Where do you draw the line? Maybe forceful hospitalisation for the incubator until the baby is born to ensure correct behaviour?

You present all of these as if they carry equal risk to an unborn child's life, which is not the case.

Overheal · 17-05-2018 12:56AM

Sheeps wrote: »

I mean I personally don't think it should be legal for women to smoke, drink or abuse drugs during pregnancy. I'm not offering practical means of enforcement to stop this, but I think it's wrong and if there were a practical means to enforce such a law I'd be in favour of it.

Regardless, I'm not debating the fact that women are in control of their own bodies. What I'm saying is that while there's another life inside of someones body, there needs to be concessions made while another life protected by the constitution is sharing that woman's body in order to survive, whether the pregnancy is wanted or not.

I don't believe a woman's decision should override someone else's right to life simply for the reason that they reside inside of her. Fortunately though, that is not what we're being asked to vote on, as a decision should a woman seek an abortion will be left to a council of qualified doctors and/or a legal framework to decide.

Again my point is I don't buy in to the it's a woman's choice argument, because there is more than one party who has a stake in the outcome.

The only other party is the unborn, which ostensibly must be raised and nurtured by said woman for the next 18 years.

I agree there should be concessions: don't drink, don't smoke, don't do drugs while pregnant. I still however think the choice should ultimately be the woman's if they want to have their body to continue hosting a surrogate life. Most especially if this was for reasons such as rape or incest, but I would also be fine if it was from contraceptive failure.

ceadaoin. · 17-05-2018 12:57AM

Sheeps wrote: »

I mean I personally don't think it should be legal for women to smoke, drink or abuse drugs during pregnancy. I'm not offering practical means of enforcement to stop this, but I think it's wrong and if there were a practical means to enforce such a law I'd be in favour of it.

Great idea, convicting (and what, jailing? Removing their children?), pregnant women who are addicted to cigarettes, alcohol and drugs will definitely encourage them to seek help. One things for sure, it definitely wouldn't push them to completely disengage from health care professionals and continue using through fear of the repercussions. Nope.

Kiwi in IE · 17-05-2018 12:58AM

Sheeps wrote: »

I mean I personally don't think it should be legal for women to smoke, drink or abuse drugs during pregnancy. I'm not offering practical means of enforcement to stop this, but I think it's wrong and if there were a practical means to enforce such a law I'd be in favour of it.

Regardless, I'm not debating the fact that women are in control of their own bodies. What I'm saying is that while there's another life inside of someones body, there needs to be concessions made while another life protected by the constitution is sharing that woman's body in order to survive, whether the pregnancy is wanted or not.

I don't believe a woman's decision should override someone else's right to life simply for the reason that they reside inside of her. Fortunately though, that is not what we're being asked to vote on, as a decision should a woman seek an abortion will be left to a council of qualified doctors and/or a legal framework to decide.

Again my point is I don't buy in to the it's a woman's choice argument, because there is more than one party who has a stake in the outcome.

Are you in favour of revoking the right to travel then?

Wasn’t it you who said earlier that you are undecided and looking for non emotional reasons to vote from both sides? You don’t sound very undecided!

Just her · 17-05-2018 12:59AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Of course it's possible. It's also possible that the age of consent will drop to 5, and drinking age will drop to 12... but it's very very unlikely.

Weren't you asking me for precedents too earlier?! That one not suit you?!

Hotblack Desiato · 17-05-2018 01:03AM

Logo wrote: »

Hey I'm out. All political parties, social media and the press are for repeal. Pity.

Renua
Most of FF
Part of FG
Plenty of independent TDs

are against repeal

Sheeps · 17-05-2018 01:04AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Are you in favour of revoking the right to travel then?

Wasn’t it you who said earlier that you are undecided and looking for non emotional reasons to vote from both sides? You don’t sound very undecided!

Trust me, I've as many issues with the no side. Part of me is playing devils advocate. I have a lot of issues with the arguments presented with both sides, this thread just happens to lean towards the yes and as such I find myself disagreeing with certain arguments from the yes side because they're more common. I'm really am just trying to figure out where I'll land on the issue.

If I vote yes it will most likely be along the same reasons that they've legalised prostitution in the Netherlands. Not because everyone agrees with it, or because of any moral reason, but because it's a reality and we may better off taking a progressive stance in assisting those who rely on it or find themselves in that situation rather than trying to fight it.

ceadaoin. · 17-05-2018 01:08AM

Sheeps wrote: »

You present all of these as if they carry equal risk to an unborn child's life, which is not the case.

So do you. No study has ever found that moderate drinking has any effect on babies..it takes A LOT. Even not all all children of actual alcoholics are affected. You are equating a woman having a single glass of wine with someone drinking gallons of spirits. Smoking is worse as even a small amount CAN (not will, there's a difference) lead to low birth weight and poorer outcomes but criminalising pregnant women isn't going help. The women who smoke, drink to excess or abuse drugs are going to do it anyway. If help is offered and not being charged with a crime then they are more likely to seek help

And yes being obese is just as damaging to an unborn child as some other things and carries a lot of risks. Given that there are a lot more obese people than heavy smokers or drinkers there are probably more children affected. Same with a lot of stress during pregnancy. It leads to low birth weights and can have lifelong effects on the child.

Dressing gown · 17-05-2018 01:11AM

Sheeps wrote: »

Trust me, I've as many issues with the no side. Part of me is playing devils advocate. I have a lot of issues with the arguments presented with both sides, this thread just happens to lean towards the yes and as such I find myself disagreeing with certain arguments from the yes side because they're more common. I'm really am just trying to figure out where I'll land on the issue.

If I vote yes it will most likely be along the same reasons that they've legalised prostitution in the Netherlands. Not because everyone agrees with it, or because of any moral reason, but because it's a reality and we may better off taking a progressive stance in assisting those who rely on it or find themselves in that situation rather than trying to fight it.

You have asked for logical reasoning but by applying logic to the terminology you yourself use suggests to me that you are emotionally sided on this argument already and therefore cannot be as objective as you would like to think you are. You repeatedly reference the foetus as a child which it is not. You also refer to women (whether you are aware or mean to) in a way that suggests you do not view them as an equal to yourself. If you honestly believe women should be subjected to different laws when pregnant to the laws a man must obey then you believe that pregnant women should have lesser human rights. Ergo from a human rights perspective you will never believe women have a right to choice.

_Dara_ · 17-05-2018 01:13AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Are you in favour of revoking the right to travel then?

Wasn’t it you who said earlier that you are undecided and looking for non emotional reasons to vote from both sides? You don’t sound very undecided!

Absolutely. The undecideds always seem very much decided to me. So transparent. They do think we’re all stupid, don’t they?

I’ve said it before but I have so much more respect for those who have the courage of their convictions and are comfortable with saying that they will voting no. The mealy-mouthers on the other hand...

Sheeps · 17-05-2018 01:15AM

Dressing gown wrote: »

You have asked for logical reasoning but by applying logic to the terminology you yourself use suggests to me that you are emotionally sided on this argument already and therefore cannot be as objective as you would like to think you are. You repeatedly reference the foetus as a child which it is not. You also refer to women (whether you are aware or mean to) in a way that suggests you do not view them as an equal to yourself. If you honestly believe women should be subjected to different laws when pregnant to the laws a man must obey then you believe that pregnant women should have lesser human rights. Ergo from a human rights perspective you will never believe women have a right to choice.

In what way have I referenced women in a way that suggests I do not see them as equal to myself? Is this a joke?

Dressing gown · 17-05-2018 01:17AM

Sheeps wrote: »

In what way have I referenced women in a way that suggests I do not see them as equal to myself? Is this a joke?

Because you would subject pregnant women to less personal freedoms to the personal freedoms enjoyed by a man.

Sheeps · 17-05-2018 01:20AM

Dressing gown wrote: »

Because you would subject pregnant women to less personal freedoms to the personal freedoms enjoyed by a man.

If a man were to become pregnant I would insist he be subject to the same treatment. Acknowledging biological differences between men and women is not sexist and does not imply a belief that one sex is inferior to another.

17-05-2018 01:22AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

I am asking whether you think a father should have any right to decide about the life of his unborn child?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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?

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.

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

Let me make it very simple. A baby, at conception, has 100% human DNA - hence it is human, and deserving of the same rights as any other human.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

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

Yes, I believe that women have a right to bodily autonomy. No, I do not believe that that bodily autonomy exceeds the right of the unborn to life.

erica74 wrote: »

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.

That's not only ignoring the right to life of the baby, it is also removing all choice from the father. Do you not see, then, that this is removing the rights of two people, to cater to the wishes of one person?

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Removing the shackles of those in crisis of course it's a hell of a jump, which is why we must vote yes!

On your concern of up to 12 weeks, the first trimester why doesn't this make sense? Been available for our women up to a longer period for years (and continue to be) just not in our country.

It makes perfect sense if you regard the unborn as babies - fully human and deserving of care.

NuMarvel wrote: »

His alternative was "Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to invalidate, or to deprive of force or effect, any provision of a law on the ground that it prohibits abortion.". In essence, it meant that abortion laws couldn't be found unconstitutional, and couldn't be struck down by the courts.

It's not particularly relevant now, but I mention it to highlight that the AG's opposition wasn't based on his personal feelings on the matter. It was because the issue is incompatible with the constitution.

And if you think the issue can't be effectively dealt with in the Constitution in one article or in one referendum, then it really doesn't belong there. Constitutional referendums aren't games of 20 Questions; constitutional provisions are meant to go decades without being changed. If there's something in there that needs multiple referenda to get right, then by definition it shouldn't be in there.

You realise that for nearly 10 years, the issue of protection for the unborn at conception has been entirely in the purview of politicians, right?

What's more when the Supreme Court made this finding the Pro Life Campaign called for legislation to protect embryos at conception, not a constitutional amendment.

The thing you're objecting to has been the status quo for years, and you're not even aware of it. If that's not proof that this "trust politicians" malarkey is a smokescreen for scaremongering, I don't know what is.

It absolutely belongs there. The right to life is a fundamental right, and, as such, there is no better place for it to be enshrined than in the Constitution.
Precisely because it should be decided on by the people - democratically - not by politicians.

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

As a man I don't see what the problem is, of course a father can have his say and would surely stand by her decision. You word it like you suggest the father wishes the woman to continue her pregnancy and it would be wrong to accept any other factors. I'd suggest the fella go find a different woman for himself if that's the case.

Why would he surely stand by her decision? If he wanted to raise his child, as my friend did, why should he stand by her decision? Is he somehow less of a parent because he is male?

How does finding a different woman for himself help with his grief over his child?

swampgas wrote: »

I assume that this belief of yours is religiously based, because there isn't really any other sensible reason for believing that a zygote should have the same rights as a living adult.

You don't have to explain or justify that belief, but you might try explaining why your rather extreme faith-based position on abortion should be imposed on the whole country by the constitution. Do you not agree with the concept of freedom of religion?

You're making rather a lot of assumptions, there. My beliefs on abortion are neither faith based, nor extreme.

Martina1991 wrote: »

Then by your own statement, you must be against the morning after pill, the 13th amendment, IVF clinics, abortions in the cases of rape etc?
Anything else is hypocrisy.

???
What do any of these have to do with the referendum on the 8th Amendment?

I'm not being asked to vote on their legality, hence my beliefs - which might surprise you, btw - are completely irrelevant.

I'm not being asked to do anything other than vote according to my own morals - and my morals do not permit me to approve the amendment as it is being proposed, no matter how badly I feel for women who are raped.

It is that simple.

Hotblack Desiato · 17-05-2018 01:26AM

The Black Oil wrote: »

Read a No leaflet today. It talked about the health service being overstretched and how abortion on demand would add to this. Lovely attitude towards women, really.

What'll happen to the health service if Irish women stopped having abortions?

Logic really is not the strong point of the No campaign

Overheal · 17-05-2018 01:31AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Let me make it very simple. A baby, at conception, has 100% human DNA - hence it is human, and deserving of the same rights as any other human.

So does my pubic hair. Should my pubic hair follicle get human rights?

spookwoman · 17-05-2018 02:00AM

Sheeps wrote: »

If a man were to become pregnant I would insist he be subject to the same treatment. Acknowledging biological differences between men and women is not sexist and does not imply a belief that one sex is inferior to another.

But a man can not get pregnant and will not be subjected to the same treatment or should I say lack of treatment as a woman.
Has a man ever gone into a hospital to get an x ray, scan etc and asked was he pregnant, when was his last period.
Has a man every been told he cannot have his CT scan or treatment today that he will have to reschedule because he couldn't remember the last time he had his period or because it fell on the wrong time of the month and therefore he may be pregnant.

pleas advice · 17-05-2018 02:27AM

Overheal wrote: »

So does my pubic hair. Should my pubic hair follicle get human rights?

That's a bollocks argument, excuse the language

sabat · 17-05-2018 02:33AM

spookwoman wrote: »

But a man can not get pregnant and will not be subjected to the same treatment or should I say lack of treatment as a woman.
Has a man ever gone into a hospital to get an x ray, scan etc and asked was he pregnant, when was his last period.
Has a man every been told he cannot have his CT scan or treatment today that he will have to reschedule because he couldn't remember the last time he had his period or because it fell on the wrong time of the month and therefore he may be pregnant.

A non-confrontational question here, but can I ask how this differs from other countries? Do health care professionals everywhere not have a duty to ascertain whether a woman is pregnant or not before treating her?

Calina · 17-05-2018 02:50AM

Sheeps wrote: »

Dressing gown wrote: »

Because you would subject pregnant women to less personal freedoms to the personal freedoms enjoyed by a man.

If a man were to become pregnant I would insist he be subject to the same treatment. Acknowledging biological differences between men and women is not sexist and does not imply a belief that one sex is inferior to another.

Assigning different rights and obligations however, does. So limiting womens rights to make decisions in terms of medical treatment - and I am not talking just about abortion but medical consent in general - and enforcing on them the obligation to become a parent when men can and do avoid the obligation to become parents and do not have their rights in terms of medical consent limited in any way very much implies that women are inferior. Biological differences should not confer greater freedoms and fewer obligations on a man.

Larbre34 · 17-05-2018 02:51AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Renua
Most of FF
Part of FG
Plenty of independent TDs

are against repeal

Renua... 2 county councillors out of 949. No Oireachtas members. Political irrelevance.

We only have this to go on, but the final Oireachtas votes for the 36th amendment bill were; Dáil 110-32 in favour, Seanad 35-10 in favour.

Those ratios are both 72:28 approx. Not far off 3-1.

Im projecting Yes 65-35 on the Day.

swampgas · 17-05-2018 02:55AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Let me make it very simple. A baby, at conception, has 100% human DNA - hence it is human, and deserving of the same rights as any other human.

What's so special about DNA that it confers rights? Everything biological is made of DNA (or RNA) of some kind. Surely DNA isn't enough? Is human DNA somehow embued with rights just because it is human?

Yes, I believe that women have a right to bodily autonomy. No, I do not believe that that bodily autonomy exceeds the right of the unborn to life.

So reduced autonomy while in Ireland for pregnant women. Except no restrictions on travel for abortion. That's fine I guess?

That's not only ignoring the right to life of the baby, it is also removing all choice from the father. Do you not see, then, that this is removing the rights of two people, to cater to the wishes of one person?

You seem to be arguing for enforced pregnancy. If the father and mother (to be) cannot agree, then the father-to-be loses out. That's biology.

It makes perfect sense if you regard the unborn as babies - fully human and deserving of care.

But this is the esence of the debate. You need to make a case for that assertion.

I'm not being asked to do anything other than vote according to my own morals - and my morals do not permit me to approve the amendment as it is being proposed, no matter how badly I feel for women who are raped.

It is that simple.

Our morals should not necessarily determine the law of the land. Some think sex outside marriage is immoral, we don't make it illegal. Why, in this case, do you feel that your morals deserve to be in the constitution?

Why not make it a matter of personal moral choice, seeing as there is no obvious consensus on the matter?

applehunter · 17-05-2018 03:13AM

Overheal wrote: »

So does my pubic hair. Should my pubic hair follicle get human rights?

I hope you are out canvassing for YES.

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

Comments