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

Overheal wrote: »

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

Really? You couldn't just say "hair"?
For the record, "hair" does not have the ability to develop sentience, to feel pain, to grow into anything other than keratin.

Your rather crude comparison was also a poor comparison.

swampgas wrote: »

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?

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

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.

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



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?

My vote is a matter of personal moral choice.
You choose to ignore the fact that this referendum is no more, or less, than voting on the options contained on the ballot paper, pertaining to the Constitution as it is.

I'm not being asked to insert a moral clause in the Constitution. I'm being asked to (help) remove one, for an option I find very distasteful.
Abortion on demand, up to 12 weeks, is total anathema for someone who believes in the right to life.

I voted in favour of freedom to travel. Anything else would be totally unworkable, that's the reality of the situation. Though I would question whether that clause should ever have been put in the Constitution.
If we suspect someone is going to commit a serious crime in another jurisdiction, do we have a clause that expressly permits them to travel? Or denies them the right to travel? No!

I'm not arguing for enforced pregnancy. I'm asking why the wishes of a woman should automatically override the rights/wishes of the father, and the right to life of the unborn.
The reality is, abortion removes the choice of two of the three people involved, where womens rights are regarded as paramount.


[/I]

applehunter wrote: »

I hope you are out canvassing for YES.

:D

erica74 wrote: »

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.

One out of three of the persons involved is not a majority vote. It's a minority vote.

I'm arguing that if fathers are equally responsible for the creation of a child, should that not automatically give them rights over whether that child dies?

What makes you think nothing will change if I vote "No".
There is absolutely nothing to stop any Government from holding another referendum. Hint: Nice, and Lisbon.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.



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?



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.

Basic human etiquette does not help a man who wants to keep his child.
There have been cases in the American courts where parents have disagreed about IVF embryos. It would take a very heartless person not to sympathise with the parent who desperately wants to raise those babies, and is willing to assume all responsibility for them - only to be left grieving when that is not allowed.

Have you ever spoken to a man, face to face, after his child has been aborted?
I have - and I can only describe it as gut-wrenching. I wonder if it happened to someone you know, would you be quite so blasé about it?

As a matter of interest, I'm not obliged to provide scientific proof to humour you. I haven't read the entire thread, you may have offered what you consider to be scientific proof. I'm not a scientist.

However, I will say that I do not consider sentience to be a valid reason to
deny someone's humanity. Neither do I accept inability to feel pain. If that were the case, inability to prove conscious thought would be grounds to deny life - and again, there have been cases where people who were in a coma for extended periods, and were believed to be brain dead, who regained consciousness, and were found to have been aware of their surroundings during the coma.


Equally, is someone who is not feeling pain to be regarded as having no rights.
Where would that leave someone who requires high levels of pain medication, but who can continue living normally after, say, 6 months?

IVF is something I have very nuanced beliefs about.
I would have no issue with IVF if, say, two or three eggs were harvested, with a view to being implanted one at a time, and all of them being used.

I have huge issues with the idea of multiple embryos being created, in the certain knowledge that not all of them will be used, therefore creating (my definition of) human life, only to destroy it.

Stem cell research I have no issue with, where the stem cells are taken from the prospective patient, or an adult to volunteers to donate stem cells, or, for that matter, stem cells from umbilical cords.
Umbilical cords have served their function, harvesting stem cells from them does not deny life to a foetus.

Stem cell research on aborted babies I find repugnant.

Most moral issues are neither black nor white. They're grey. Which results in a need for a nuanced response.

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

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



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.

I'm not being asked whether I can live my life. I'm being asked whether I approve of removing the right to life of the unborn, and replacing it with abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, and in more limited circumstance for 24 week. I don't approve, it's that simple.

You believe my friend is not less of a parent because he is male, yet you do not think he should have rights about his unborn child, is that what you are saying?
I believe my friend is no less a parent than the mother of the unborn child. Therefore I believe his rights should be equal to hers.

My friends situation was not hypothetical. It was very real.
He loved his partner, and his child. She claimed to love him, she didn't want a child. He had no intention of "disposing" of her after the birth. He had the nursery set up, pram, pushchair, cot, baby clothes - everything prepared.
His Mother was excited at the thought of being a Grandmother, and happy to babysit if his partner wanted to work or attend college.
That baby was aborted just prior to the 28 week deadline, as it was at the time.
It broke his heart. It also broke up the relationship.

But it seems that some people do not regard that as a tragedy. I cannot, in conscience, take that approach.

ELM327 wrote: »

Developing children have a birth certificate

At 500g weight, or 24 weeks gestation, yes, they do.

ELM327 wrote: »

I discussed this with my partner who had a miscarriage (of a wanted pregnancy) before we met.

She explained that while there is a loss, it's the loss of the potential life that could have been, instead of an actual loss.

I agree with her (and not just because I have to )

I've had three miscarriages. Each loss felt like an actual loss of a baby - not a loss of potential life. Maybe that was because I already had a child.
I can't explain the difference in your partners feelings and mine, but I do think it's important to note that not everyone feels the same.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

This is what I don't understand .People who try to force their beliefs on others and vote NO . No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion so these people can carry on just as they were and feel safe that no one will make them have an abortion .Yet they somehow feel it is up to them to push their beliefs and their opinions on other people .If it does not affect them why are they ranting at others to think as they do ? It baffles me . I will vote Yes but I sure am not forcing anyone to do anything by voting Yes .I am only opening up a choice fore them .

Actually, the same could be said of the "Yes" campaigners, who are trying to persuade people they must accommodate the wishes of others.
It's much simpler than that, whether you are a "Yes" or a "No" voter.

You are only asked to vote for what you believe is the best option. Retain, or Repeal.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is possible to change to constitution, though.

It is a matter of respecting the wishes of the people, rather than giving them an option they find unacceptable, and saying "Take it, or leave it!", essentially.

meeeeh wrote: »

I think the last poll in the IT is interesting. There is large cohort of yes vote that feel uncomfortable about the 12 week rule. Everyone is saying how vital it is to get undecided on their side, but I think more important is to persuade uneasy yes voters to vote and to vote yes. No campaign is targeting them with assertions that there are no actual limits and how with time the changes will be even more liberal.

If yes side go ahead with more aggressive statements about denying women the right over their bodies and so on they could loose middle ground and middle ground is vital here. Brid Smith or Ruth Coppinger don't need to persuade those who agree with them and everyone else can't stand them (probably also half of those who agree with them). If they are kept away and more moderate politicians are wheeled out by yes side I think there is better chance of success. Thankfully the other side has Mattie McGrath and that will hopefully put off majority of voters with the iq above their shoe size. But this referendum is no way decided.

Why do you think politicians will influence how people vote? Or celebrities, for that matter?

Anecdotally, there were "Yes" canvassers in my area last week.
In fairness, the young girl at my door politely accepted that I would vote note, and we parted amicably.

My neighbour, on the other hand, had the somewhat unpleasant experience of a belligerent man, who claimed to be a doctor, asking her how dare she disagree with his medical opinion.
She slammed the door in his face.
Personally, I'd have asked him why he thought his being a doctor gave him the right to try to deny my Democratic right to make my own choice.

The same applies to politicians and celebrities.
Thinking they should have the ability to influence the vote is nothing more than arrogance, imho.

Neyite wrote: »

This is my view also. I feel that it needs to be legalised in order to effectively and safely manage the process, and to hopefully reduce the need for abortion overall in our country by also putting in initiatives of increased sexual health education, affordable contraception, and societal supports for women who are having a crisis pregnancy. Exporting abortion or importing secret ones harms women.

I don't want anyone to die or suffer life-changing ill health if it is medically preventable, it's that simple.

Somehow, given the current economic situation, I wouldn't hold my breath on increased societal supports.

I don't want anyone to die, either. I would include the unborn in that "anyone", though.

wingsof daun wrote: »

quite like a some Muslims attitude towards our saviour Christ.

what is the muslim attitude to Jesus then?