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

Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

Options
1…1820222324

Comments

  • Options
    #572
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Excuse my ignorance here, but in the event of a No vote will things actually stay as is? Since the hard cases have come to wider prominence even since 2013 and most people see certain cases as needing an abortion, surely the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013 will be amended and liberalised further, or something similar will be brought in to cover the hard cases?

    It depends on whether you believe our flip flopping Taoiseach. He is, of course, lying when he says this is it for another generation. He'll do what the people want him to do.


  • Options
    #573
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You have a rather narrow definition of "sex".

    I have a realistic definition of sex. Sex is fun and pleasurable. It's also risky and dangerous. It can blow your mind and mess with it. It can bring you closer to someone, so close you can transmit a sexual infection; and yes, like I've said, it's main function is for reproduction.
    I'm reminded of the tongue-in-cheek definition of Puritanism: the haunting feeling that someone, somewhere is having a good time.

    Another Ad hominem.

    Have all the raunchy, fun, mind blowing sex you want - that's up to you. I really don't care what you get up to in you're private life.

    However, if you end up creating a new human life, then you are responsible for that new human life and you don't get to kill it because it didn't fit with you're definition of what sex and its consequences should be.

    This is one of the most shallow, immature and irresponsible attitudes you could hold.


  • Options
    #574
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,301 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Excuse my ignorance here, but in the event of a No vote will things actually stay as is? Since the hard cases have come to wider prominence even since 2013 and most people see certain cases as needing an abortion, surely the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013 will be amended and liberalised further, or something similar will be brought in to cover the hard cases?

    As I understand it legislation has been pushed as far as it can by POLDPA13, anything further needs a referendum.


  • Options
    #575
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,058 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    As I understand it legislation has been pushed as far as it can by POLDPA13, anything further needs a referendum.

    I'm not convinced they can't find more wiggle room, and probably will in the event of a No vote seeing as some of these hard cases must be accounted for. It's come to a head, and I can't see people suffering in instances of these hard cases be let continue


  • Options
    #576
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    As I understand it legislation has been pushed as far as it can by POLDPA13, anything further needs a referendum.

    Its not that we're strangers to a second referendum soon after the first. Is it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #577
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    surely the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013 will be amended and liberalised further, or something similar will be brought in to cover the hard cases?

    Nope.

    The PoLDPA is the way it is because it enacts the 8th as understood by the Supreme Court in the judgement on the X case.

    If you want a more liberal law, even a little bit like removing the 14 year jail sentence, you must first repeal or amend the 8th.


  • Options
    #578
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,301 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    I'm not convinced they can't find more wiggle room, and probably will in the event of a No vote seeing as some of these hard cases must be accounted for. It's come to a head, and I can't see people suffering in instances of these hard cases be let continue

    You'll have another way on Friday of pretty instantly making sure those cases are catered for, rather than the normal routine of - unforeseen death, hands wringing, marches, investigation, inquiry, dail committee coming up with paper/bill, sh1tstorm vote in Dail, high court appeal, supreme court appeal, eventual signing by President. And the latter would need there to actually be some wiggle room left (quite why they didn't seize it in 2013 would be a mystery.)


  • Options
    #579
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    You'll have another way on Friday of pretty instantly making sure those cases are catered for..

    ... and then some.


  • Options
    #580
    Wrongway1985
    Registered Users Posts: 6,350 ✭✭✭Wrongway1985


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Abortion is the 007 option. Ejecting the driver from the car as soon as they panic. No attempt to brake, no steering around the obstacle.

    The Irish School of Motoring

    Unfortunate for the other passengers

    If we are on the topic of motoring and abortion, do you think it is acceptable that the parents of much wanted children can be allowed end up in a situation where they are returning to a country who shoned them with remains in the boot of a car?


  • Options
    #581
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    If you want a more liberal law, even a little bit like removing the 14 year jail sentence, you must first repeal or amend the 8th.

    Why would you need to repeal the 8th in order to tweak legislation that deals with the punitive action taken by the state?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #582
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,301 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Why would you need to repeal the 8th in order to tweak legislation that deals with the punitive action taken by the state?

    Because a light sentence would be in contravention of the 8th amendment.
    You can't value A & B the same, and then have an extremely lighter sentence for harming A than B.


  • Options
    #583
    Wrongway1985
    Registered Users Posts: 6,350 ✭✭✭Wrongway1985


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Why would you need to repeal the 8th in order to tweak legislation that deals with the punitive action taken by the state?

    There was a vote on a bill to diminish the sentence imposed not so long ago and it was defeated it is almost certain that a No vote will have that off the table for quite some time.

    How can you be concerned about the 14 year jail term? I was understanding you want it to legally ignore abortions by making them remain illegal to be carried out here?


  • Options
    #584
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Wrongway1985 wrote: »
    If we are on the topic of motoring and abortion, do you think it is acceptable that the parents of much wanted children can be allowed end up in a situation where they are returning to a country who shoned them with remains in the boot of a car?

    No I don't. But I'm not convinced that fitting ejector seats to every car in the land is the way to resolve that issue.


  • Options
    #585
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    Because a light sentence would be in contravention of the 8th amendment.

    Why? The 8th only states that laws shall be made to defend and vindicate the right to life of the unborn and the mother.

    What language there dictates that punitive legislation must be particularly harsh or, more specifically, be a 14 year year jail sentence and/or fine?

    Surely, that's up to the Oireachtas?


  • Options
    #586
    Pete29
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭Pete29


    Wrongway1985 wrote: »
    There was a vote on a bill to diminish the sentence imposed not so long ago and it was defeated it is almost certain that a No vote will have that off the table for quite some time.

    That was vote in the legislature that was defeated? That's not the same as a harsh penalty being dictated by the constitution.


  • Options
    #587
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,301 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Why? The 8th only states that laws shall be made to defend and vindicate the right to life of the unborn and the mother.

    What language there dictates that punitive legislation must be particularly harsh or, more specifically, be a 14 year year jail sentence and/or fine?

    Surely, that's up to the Oireachtas?

    Oireachtas has to uphold the constitution.

    As to first question, to be honest it seems kind of obvious to me, intuitive even. If the penalty for illegal abortion is significantly less than that for harming a live woman, then clearly the state would be failing to uphold the terms of the amendment. No????

    Attorney General agrees with this.


  • Options
    #588
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Why? The 8th only states that laws shall be made to defend and vindicate the right to life of the unborn and the mother.

    No, you left out the most serious word, EQUAL.

    The right to life of the unborn is equal to the right to life of the woman.

    So killing the unborn must be a crime with a punishment similar to killing the woman or the state would fail in its duty and the law will be in conflict with the 8th.

    This is not my opinion, it is the advice of the Attorney General on a bill to eliminate that 14 year sentence by Bríd Smith and AAA-PBP


  • Options
    #589
    daithi84
    Registered Users Posts: 197 ✭✭daithi84


    From what ive read in newspaper reports, the attorney general has stated that abortion is treated under the 8th amendment akin to murder so therefore a 14 year sentence was applied. Even though 14 years is longer than the majority of murderers actually get.

    However the 8th comes with a loophole that a woman can travel to bypass the crime and sentence. Which proves that the 8th amendment is a pointless law.


  • Options
    #590
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Excuse my ignorance here, but in the event of a No vote will things actually stay as is? Since the hard cases have come to wider prominence even since 2013 and most people see certain cases as needing an abortion, surely the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013 will be amended and liberalised further, or something similar will be brought in to cover the hard cases?
    The PLDPA cannot be further liberalised. The 8th amendment prevents it.
    Pete29 wrote: »
    Why? The 8th only states that laws shall be made to defend and vindicate the right to life of the unborn and the mother.

    What language there dictates that punitive legislation must be particularly harsh or, more specifically, be a 14 year year jail sentence and/or fine?

    Surely, that's up to the Oireachtas?
    Nope. The 8th doesn't say that "laws shall be made to defend and vindicate", it says that the state:

    "guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.".

    These two phrases; "guarantees" and "as far as is practicable", place an obligation on the Oireachtas to enact legislation that does everything that is reasonably possible to defend the right to life of the unborn. It doesn't have to be 14 years specifically, but a much lesser punishment would be unconstitutional because it would not be fulfilling the state's guarantee to do as much as it can.

    It cannot be a fine. It cannot be a misdemeanor. It is basically one step below murder, because that is defending the right to life of the unborn, "as far as is practicable", as required by the 8th amendment.


  • Options
    #591
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Abortion is the 007 option. Ejecting the driver from the car as soon as they panic. No attempt to brake, no steering around the obstacle.

    The Irish School of Motoring

    Unfortunate for the other passengers
    Pete29 wrote: »
    Have all the raunchy, fun, mind blowing sex you want - that's up to you. I really don't care what you get up to in you're private life.

    However, if you end up creating a new human life, then you are responsible for that new human life and you don't get to kill it because it didn't fit with you're definition of what sex and its consequences should be.
    Here's the thing: if your starting point in this debate is that a fertilised egg is a human person, in the same way that an adult woman is a human person, then there's really no point trying to have a discussion on the topic, because it's not a question of trying to figure out the nuances and edge cases.

    To someone who believes that a small clump of cells is a person, abortion is wrong, and there's an end to it. That person will vote "no", and is welcome to convince others to vote "no" on the basis of their personal belief that a small clump of cells is a person.

    Where I have a problem is with people who try to dress up this dogmatic belief system as a rational conclusion that they've arrived at after careful thought. That's why I've tried - with no success whatsoever - to tease out your position on the so-called "hard cases" - why I've asked under what circumstances you'd permit abortion.

    You've refused point-blank to answer the question. Why is that, I wonder?
    Pete29 wrote: »
    I have a realistic definition of sex. Sex is fun and pleasurable. It's also risky and dangerous. It can blow your mind and mess with it. It can bring you closer to someone, so close you can transmit a sexual infection; and yes, like I've said, it's main function is for reproduction.

    So the main function of sex for a gay couple is reproduction? The main function of sex for an infertile couple is reproduction? The main function of sex for a couple who don't want children is reproduction? The main function of sex between a rapist and his pre-teen victim is reproduction?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #592
    Wrongway1985
    Registered Users Posts: 6,350 ✭✭✭Wrongway1985


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    No I don't. But I'm not convinced that fitting ejector seats to every car in the land is the way to resolve that issue.

    Well you know full well we will continue to let that happen with a No vote.

    Give me some alternatives? Talk is cheap repealing guarantees the ball gets rolling.

    TDs who opposed the 2013 bill are now using it as a tool to manipulate people these same people proposing to look elsewhere instead of facilitating in our own country will disappear once the election is over.

    If a No vote goes through you can guarantee we will soon be hearing from a No voter who finds themselves in a crisis pregnancy. It is inevitable many people have put stories out over the weeks that they voted for the 8th amendment in; in 83 but have had some harsh realities since then change there mind.


  • Options
    #593
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Wrongway1985 wrote: »
    Well you know full well we will continue to let that happen with a No vote.

    Whether it's to every car in the land now is open to question. The question is whether abortions increase when on demand.


    Give me some alternatives? Talk is cheap repealing guarantees the ball gets rolling.

    Where to though?

    If this whole discussion makes it patently clear where the bulk of the electorate want the country to go in terms of it's abortion laws then it can't be beyond the wit of society to enable that happening. To suppose it must be all or nothing (when it appears the bulk of the country isn't for all or nothing) belongs to the realms of the extremists on both sides


    If a No vote goes through you can guarantee we will soon be hearing from a No voter who finds themselves in a crisis pregnancy.

    For sure. And we have people who are damaged by the abortions they now regret. The point isn't to wheel out extremes. The point is to find out and obtain what we as a society want

    YES and NO have brought the current black/white scenario about

    It is inevitable many people have put stories out over the weeks that they voted for the 8th amendment in; in 83 but have had some harsh realities since then change there mind.[/QUOTE]


  • Options
    #594
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,225 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Pete29 wrote: »
    Why? The 8th only states that laws shall be made to defend and vindicate the right to life of the unborn and the mother.

    What language there dictates that punitive legislation must be particularly harsh or, more specifically, be a 14 year year jail sentence and/or fine?

    Surely, that's up to the Oireachtas?

    The equal right to life.

    Taken to the extremes, The State could within the terms of the 8th enact a law that provides that a woman who doesn't exercise due care, falls down a stairs and subsequently miscarries, could be guilty of manslaughter.

    That the State hasn't done so to date doesn't mean it couldn't.


  • Options
    #595
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    To suppose it must be all or nothing (when it appears the bulk of the country isn't for all or nothing) belongs to the realms of the extremists on both sides

    Repealing isn't an "all or nothing" proposal. It simply moves the regulation of termination of pregnancies out of the Constitution and back where it belongs: legislation.

    And yes, I know: you don't trust politicians not to enact laws you disagree with. I don't trust politicians not to enact laws I disagree with, either. The difference is that I'm not campaigning to have my dogmatic beliefs enshrined in the Constitution.


  • Options
    #596
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    And yes, I know: you don't trust politicians not to enact laws you disagree with. I don't trust politicians not to enact laws I disagree with, either. The difference is that I'm not campaigning to have my dogmatic beliefs enshrined in the Constitution.

    Eh... that kind of removes the point of a Constitution. Enshrining cherished ideas - beyond the hands of politicians.

    You suggesting we dump the Constitution just because you don't like some of what's enshrined?


  • Options
    #597
    spacecoyote
    Registered Users Posts: 8,439 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Eh... that kind of removes the point of a Constitution. Enshrining cherished ideas - beyond the hands of politicians.

    You suggesting we dump the Constitution just because you don't like some of what's enshrined?

    You're being disingenuous here. You know that's not what he's saying.

    He's saying we should have a constitution, but that the right place to legislate for this subject is not within that constution


  • Options
    #598
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Eh... that kind of removes the point of a Constitution. Enshrining cherished ideas - beyond the hands of politicians.

    You suggesting we dump the Constitution just because you don't like some of what's enshrined?

    I would have thought it was fairly obvious that I wasn't suggesting dumping the Constitution by virtue of the simple fact that I didn't suggest dumping the Constitution. It's a bit rich to talk about "all or nothing" belonging to the realms of the extremists, only to follow that up with the suggestion that if you can't have your personal morality enshrined in the Constitution then we may as well not have one.

    As for "enshrining cherished ideas" - as I've pointed out before, the Constitution isn't a shrine. And the idea that women should be forced to be pregnant against their will most certainly isn't an idea that I cherish.


  • Options
    #599
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    DarkScar wrote: »
    So you're agreeing that with better sex education contraception would be 99.99% percent effective.
    Thanks for the consensus.

    If we have a population of 1 million sexually active men and women and they have sex once per week with perfect use of contraception that will still amount to 50 failures per week (0.01% of 500,000 instances of sex).


  • Options
    #600
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The question is whether abortions increase when on demand

    I've had this discussion with you only recently and there is still nothing to say that our abortion rate will increase if we stopped exporting women to the UK to have them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #601
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Pete29 wrote: »
    In my case, it's simply a values question. When does the right to a human being's life begin. When did the right to your life begin?

    Interestingly however you appear not to have answer that question in the OP where you posed it. Rather you went on another tangent about some brand of feminism ending in "Vote No" as a conclusion. So somewhere in between your premise and your conclusion, you entirely lost track of your own argument.

    I also think the issue of abortion and pregnancy termination boils down to when the "right to life" begins in a fetus. But alas I am not seeing any coherent basis being offered as to why we would, could or should afford that right at the stages abortion generally tends to occur.... which is at 10-12 weeks gestation.
    Pete29 wrote: »
    If you followed my reasoning I believe you would come to the opposite conclusion.

    Then by all means walk me through your reasoning. From first principles to your conclusion that choice based abortion of a fetus in or before week 12 is morally problematic. Otherwise, to use your own words, this discussion will do nothing more than "show you have no justification for your beliefs. You just believe what you want to believe".

    It seems to me that your "reasoning" consists of an assertion with a leap in the middle of it. And that leap you have yet to fill in the substance of. The assertion is, from one of your posts "An unborn fetus is human life and has a right to exist.". This leap, covered entirely by the word "And" in that sentence, is one I have seen no substantiation from you for as yet.

    I too believe if you followed my reasoning it would reverse your position on this matter. And I will offer that reasoning in kind if and when asked. So let us hope that first, having asked myself, you will treat me with the same decorum.
    Pete29 wrote: »
    It's contains a human genome and it's life. Ergo, it's Human Life.

    That is somewhat simplistic though and makes the error we see time and time again in this discussion. Which is the conflation of the differing meanings of "Human Life" from differing contexts into one single word with one single meaning behind which the anti abortion speaker can hide.

    The reality however is that the "Human Life" you define is true solely and only in biological taxonomy. There you will get no argument from me, you have essentially defined "human life" correctly.

    But when we move to the philosophical context of discussing things like rights, morality, ethics...... it is not biological taxonomy we are, or should be, drawing on. Rather it is the concepts of what it means to be a human PERSON. The platform your person-hood happens to be executing on should be entirely irrelevant. And if your consciousness and sentience could be transferred from your meat based platform to a silicon based platform tomorrow then ALL of your rights should transfer with it. Your empty shell of a body should have none, despite it being taxonomically human.
    Pete29 wrote: »
    It's a natural right.

    What is a "natural right" exactly? Could you flesh out a detailed definition of what this even means for me? Specifically include detail, if you would, on how they differ from any other "right" that we as humans create and apply to ourselves and those around us. Maybe also include what you think rights even are, where they come from specifically, and what they are even for.
    Pete29 wrote: »
    What about if you end up in a temporary coma? You're not conscious. Can I kill you?

    This is a question that gets asked often, and it is one of the questions that basically highlights as clearly as it is possible to highlight that the asker has actually completely and entirely misunderstood the basis and content of the "sentience based" approach to abortion.

    The quick answer to your question is no.

    The longer answer is that a new born baby, a toddler, an adult, a coma patient, a person with impaired mental capacity, and so forth are all instances of human sentience. They all HAVE that faculty. A fetus at 10 weeks when the majority of abortion happens does not. Never has had. And is a distinct period away from ever having it.

    So equivocating between different levels, or operational statuses, of human sentience misses the point and is merely a red herring. The point being that the 10 week old fetus is not just LESS sentient, it is not at all sentient. It simply lacks the faculty entirely.


Advertisement