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

Overheal · 17-05-2018 03:49AM

pleas advice wrote: »

That's a bollocks argument, excuse the language

But not the pun?

Overheal · 17-05-2018 03:51AM

applehunter wrote: »

I hope you are out canvassing for YES.

Not with some bollocks argument that DNA should be granted human rights, no.

I’m happier there’s No folks out there yelling that a baby is done developing at 12 weeks and that abortion and the Holocaust are one and the same

Sheeps · 17-05-2018 05:48AM

Calina wrote: »

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.

Unless it infringes on the rights of another. As with all rights.

Calina · 17-05-2018 05:57AM

Sheeps wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

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.

Unless it infringes on the rights of another. As with all rights.

And if the rights of an unborn infringe on the rights of another, for example, the woman carrying? Logically, your argument extends in both directions?

As with all rights...if the rights of the unborn infringe the rights of the mother?

Sheeps · 17-05-2018 06:23AM

Calina wrote: »

And if the rights of an unborn infringe on the rights of another, for example, the woman carrying? Logically, your argument extends in both directions?

As with all rights...if the rights of the unborn infringe the rights of the mother?

The unborn has not made the decision to put itself in that situation where a woman (or man in the case of rape) has made that choice to become pregnant ( or participate in an activity which carries the risk of becoming pregnant).

Calina · 17-05-2018 06:35AM

Sheeps wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

And if the rights of an unborn infringe on the rights of another, for example, the woman carrying? Logically, your argument extends in both directions?

As with all rights...if the rights of the unborn infringe the rights of the mother?

The unborn has not made the decision to put itself in that situation where a woman (or man in the case of rape) has made that choice to become pregnant ( or participate in an activity which carries the risk of becoming pregnant).

People who make the choice to get pregnant don't usually want abortions except in desperately tragic circumstances.

But your view can be summarised as women have fewer rights than men because they can get pregnant and the unborn can infringe women's rights but women cannot infringe unborn rights. To me that sounds awfully like you see women as lesser creatures than men and unborn children.

Did you actually say you were undecided?

B0jangles · 17-05-2018 06:37AM

If you believe women should be legally prevented from smoking, drinking, being obese etc., when pregnant to ensure the best possible outcome for the pregnancy, shouldn't you logically also legally require all sexually active heterosexual men to do the same, given that smoking, drinking, being obese etc., can damage their sperm, thus possibly negatively affecting any pregnancy they participate in creating?

erica74 · 17-05-2018 06:55AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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

???
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.

This comes down to biology. A woman carries the pregnancy therefore she gets the majority vote, that's life, quite simply, that is life. There is nothing we can do to reverse biology. If the father wants the pregnancy to continue and the mother doesn't, who do you think should decide? You're talking about forcing a woman to stay pregnant because a man wants her to. If any man is so desperate for a child, he can go and find someone who actually wants to have one with him.
The No side are quick enough to tell women that pregnancy is a risk with sex, well with that comes the possibility that a woman will want an abortion and not a baby.

Also, what rights do you think fathers currently have over their unborn children?

Repeal the 8th. If you want the current system to change, the only choice is to vote Yes, if you vote No, nothing will change.

BarleySweets · 17-05-2018 07:15AM

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.

sabat wrote: »

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?

They may very well have a duty to ascertain whether a woman is pregnant or not before treating her in other countries.

But, the conversation after a positive pregnancy test will be very different in Ireland due to the 8th.

In Ireland it’ll be: “Congratulations, you’re pregnant! Now here’s your options: Option A: don’t worry about the <whatever medical issue the woman has that has resulted in her seeking medical treatment in the very first place> and don’t worry if <medical issue> gets way worse over the next few months because our hands are tied by the 8th. Don’t forget to come back to us in X-number of months when it’ll be safe for us to get right back to your medical treatment. There is no Option B due to the 8th.”

In other countries the conversation will be: “Congratulations, you’re pregnant! Now here’s your options: Option A: you can ignore <medical issue> For the next few months, enjoy your pregnancy and come back to us in X-months when it will be safe for us to continue your treatment. Or Option B: end this pregnancy and we’ll continue your medical treatment tomorrow. Which option would you like to choose?”

As you can see, the woman would be granted the gift we all wish for in our lives, the freedom of self-determination. In the other country, she can take on board her doctor’s advice on whether that <medical issue> she’s suffering from may get much worse over the next few months or not, and make up her own mind on how to proceed with her treatment options. In Ireland, well she’s out of options: over the next few months, the <medical issue> might not get worse or it might cripple her, but as long as it’s not an imminent threat to her life, Irish doctors cannot help her until X-months have passed for the condition to be safely treatable.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-05-2018 07:23AM

Sheeps wrote: »

Unless it infringes on the rights of another. As with all rights.

Which is the main issue as I see it, as a lot of people are merely inventing the "other" here before it is in any coherent way warranted to do so.

You mentioned that you want "emotionless logical reason"? Well the invention of a person and personhood before warranted is ENTIRELY a move made from emotion.

It certainly is not, and seemingly has never been, done based on a shred of argument, evidence, data or reason.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-05-2018 07:23AM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

That is a bit vague. Both in terms of what you mean by "rights" and what "decision" you think he should be able to make or not make. In terms of continuing, or not, a pregnancy.... I am not seeing what "rights" a man should have at all to be honest, except the basic human etiquette of having his voice heard on the matter.

I am OPEN TO the idea people have put forward of giving him some time limited right to removing himself from any investment and responsibility i n the process. But I see problems with both doing, and not doing, that which I discussed in another thread.

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.

The problem there is you did not make it "simple" you made it "simplistic". The "hence" to "and" you added at the end of it is a large leap, and it is the substance inside that leap I have been querying you about. And what I wrote in the post you just replied to (but you are merely restating..... almost word for word..... the very thing I was questioning.) still very much applies.

Do you think it helpful, when I have twice questioned a move you are making, to merely restate that same move with slightly different wording without actually answering my question?

Further you should look into things like stem cell research and IVF as in both of those we very often create "100% human DNA" which we then later destroy without compunction. Creating and destroying human DNA is pretty much standard practice in our world. Why is it suddenly an issue here? Just because it suits you to be?

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

Well no, because in one case you are claiming we are "removing" a right that you have not actually established the person has. And in the other case you are claiming we are removing rights from a person you have not even validated calling a "person" in the first place.

ELM327 · 17-05-2018 07:39AM

Very piece on the 8th on Newstalk this morning, mentioned the latest polls as 58:42 YES, 44% in favour of abortion on demand, 61% in favour of abortion when a health issue for the mother.

Then they had someone on from the Irish Muslim community, stating that they as muslims while recognising that abortion is not ideal, would be in favour of repealing the 8th and that their religion allows for abortion below 40 days on demand as they do not recognise it as an "unborn child" then, and after that if the women's health or wellbeing needed it.

When your native religion (Catholicism) offers less in the way of women's rights than Islam, you've got a problem.
No offense to muslims, I work with quite a few and I've had some great discussions about religion with them but Islam women particularly in the middle east are expected to be subservient to the menfolk.

dog tired · 17-05-2018 07:42AM

I'm actually surprised by some people I know and their response to this referendum. Reading about alot of people voting no. People I thought would be open to change. We were able to change to allow gay marriage but people still thinks we should keep backwards rules about abortion. I know it's their choice but abortion happens and we send people off to another country to get it done. That's just very very sad. Then I saw a pregnant lady last week with a vote yes t-shirt on her. I thought someone like that would have their hormones all over the place and would be voting no. I think it's going to be a tight one with the results.

Dressing gown · 17-05-2018 07:47AM

CT aside I’m fairly confident some of the “undecideds” on this thread are no voters looking for ammo for the likes of Maria Steen to counter the yes arguments.

Just her · 17-05-2018 07:50AM

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

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?

'if they genuinely thought abortion was the taking of a human life' were the words of the poster. Is that not saying the developing baby isnt human? Or isn't alive?

Ave Sodalis · 17-05-2018 07:51AM

Just her wrote:

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

What are you talking about? What one didn't suit me?

Overheal · 17-05-2018 07:51AM

Just her wrote: »

'if they genuinely thought abortion was the taking of a human life' were the words of the poster. Is that not saying the developing baby isnt human? Or isn't alive?

It would be a human fetus would it not. Life in the making but not a living breathing person.

Dressing gown · 17-05-2018 07:51AM

Catholicism used to believe the teachings of St Augustine that the unborn did not have a soul until the quickening (when a mother can feel the baby move) at about 16 weeks. Until then it was not considered to be a person.

Scientifically, there is a form of life at conception. My view is it is a developing life. Calling it a baby is utter nonsense. For the DNA lovers, the placenta has the exact same DNA as the foetus yet it goes in medical waste. So you might need to go back to the drawing board and hone your argument a bit. Interestingly some cultures respect the placenta and bury it in a grave-they view it as a living entity that dies to enable the baby to be born.

A foetus doesn’t give a rashers until it can actually give a rashers. Assigning human emotion to something incapable of human emotion is just a hangover of the catholic church in Ireland yet again interfering in the lives of women of this country.

pleas advice · 17-05-2018 07:54AM

Some people eat the placenta after birth, fry it up like rashers...
The closest thing to socially acceptable cannibalism

Dressing gown · 17-05-2018 07:56AM

pleas advice wrote: »

Some people eat the placenta after birth, fry it up like rashers...

So are they cannibals?

Overheal · 17-05-2018 07:56AM

Dressing gown wrote: »

Catholicism used to believe the teachings of St Augustine that the unborn did not have a soul until the quickening (when a mother can feel the baby move) at about 16 weeks. Until then it was not considered to be a person.

Scientifically, there is a form of life at conception. My view is it is a developing life. Calling it a baby is utter nonsense. For the DNA lovers, the placenta has the exact same DNA as the foetus yet it goes in medical waste. So you might need to go back to the drawing board and hone your argument a bit. Interestingly some cultures respect the placenta and bury it in a grave-they view it as a living entity that dies to enable the baby to be born.

A foetus doesn’t give a rashers until it can actually give a rashers. Assigning human emotion to something incapable of human emotion is just a hangover of the catholic church in Ireland yet again interfering in the lives of women of this country.

This is where I’m at with it, philosophically. I understand the medical needs of a termination past 16 weeks, but until it’s kicking, and it’s got a brain, nervous system etc. it doesn’t have the container in any respect for a psyche or a soul.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-05-2018 07:59AM

pleas advice wrote: »

Some people eat the placenta after birth, fry it up like rashers... The closest thing to socially acceptable cannibalism

There is a user on boards.ie who in fact did just that, he wrote about it before. I was under the impression though, although I realize now I have never actually researched it or checked so I am not sure where I got this idea, that eating it as a form of broth or even pate is much more common than "frying it up like rashers"?

pleas advice · 17-05-2018 08:01AM

There are recipe books if you're into that kind of thing...

ELM327 · 17-05-2018 08:01AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is a user on boards.ie who in fact did just that, he wrote about it before. I was under the impression though, although I realize now I have never actually researched it or checked so I am not sure where I got this idea, that eating it as a form of broth or even pate is much more common than "frying it up like rashers"?

Now each to their own and that but that's horrific, gut wrench gag inducing disgusting imo.

Just her · 17-05-2018 08:01AM

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.

The foetus is a developing child

Overheal · 17-05-2018 08:02AM

Can y’all please not ruin what little fleeting memory I have of an Irish breakfast? Haven’t had a rasher in over 12 years.

(Send help)

Wrongway1985 · 17-05-2018 08:03AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

You believe life begins at conception a lot of people don't you can still live your life irresepective of others.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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?

No your friend raising a child is not less of a parent because hes male obviously?!

Obviously in this hypotetical scenario there was was imbalance in the relationship. The notion the male half of the relationship demands the woman be used as the vessel because he wants the child and she can be disposed of after is rather unforseen in reality.

Finding a different woman who is willing to have his kids in future does seem logical yes.

ELM327 · 17-05-2018 08:06AM

Just her wrote: »

The foetus is a developing child

Developing children have a birth certificate

Just her · 17-05-2018 08:06AM

Overheal wrote: »

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

Your pubic hair follicle isn't comparable to a developing baby

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-05-2018 08:06AM

ELM327 wrote: »

Now each to their own and that but that's horrific, gut wrench gag inducing disgusting imo.

I think on first scan it is, but then when one sits down and explores a gut or emotional reaction and brings intellect on line to say "Why EXACTLY is that bothering me?" it is harder to come up with an answer.

Other subjects do that too though. Such as incest between consenting adults. People have a guy visceral reaction to it but when you press them to explain exactly what is intellectually, morally or ethically wrong with it they tend to struggle quite badly.

Which is kinda how debates on things like abortion go for me (look how I did that little segue back on topic

). There are emotional reactions we have to certain aspects of it, but when one brings reason to bear on them they fall away.

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

Comments