8th Amendment

conorh91 wrote: »

In 1983 you would have been considered by some to be an extreme liberal for saying that.

But that wasn't enough. After 1992, we were told that the protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was what we needed. It wasn't just a slippery slope.

It was passed. Still not enough. Now the 2013 Act is out of the way, all that's apparently needed is abortion in cases of rape or incest (with the accused presumed guilty?)

Careful you don't slip down that slope....

Yeah, they decriminalised homosexuality 20 years ago and look what happened, they can now marry and everything. I'm getting out because the slippery slope is they'll make it compulsory.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Honestly, no mater what anyones opinion on abortion is, I find it immoral that a dying foetus' 'life' is valued equally to the life of the pregnant woman.

It is immoral that the life of that dying foetus is more important than the threat to health of the woman, no mater how serious.

How can anyone stand over such a situation and consider themselves moral beings?
I really just don't understand it.

Black Menorca wrote: »

I disagree.

However where there is a physical threat to a mother's life, a termination is of course justified, even if an unintended consequence is the sad death of her baby girl or boy.

Her baby was never to be. The foetus is dying. So you would rather see the woman left with long term serious health issues. Perhaps so sever that she will never be able to carry a child to term. That her own quality of life and life expectancy will be severely curtailed. For what? So that she can watch her foetus slowly die, while her own heart or kidneys fail?

How can you think this is right?

conorh91 wrote: »

In 1983 you would have been considered by some to be an extreme liberal for saying that.

But that wasn't enough. After 1992, we were told that the protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was what we needed. It wasn't just a slippery slope.

It was passed. Still not enough. Now the 2013 Act is out of the way, all that's apparently needed is abortion in cases of rape or incest (with the accused presumed guilty?)

Careful you don't slip down that slope....

Really? Is what I've said above a slippery slope to you?

I do believe that the unborn have rights. The born also have rights. Where is the balance when a barely organised clump of cells that will not ever become a child has an equal right to a life that will never exist as the woman who carries it. And where that woman's right to her health is ignored.

I can listen to arguments from people who are pro life and against 'abortion on demand'. I can not understand the stance taken by people who see no issue with the current situation.

conorh91 wrote: »

In fairness to the homosexuality law reform group, it has not been bashful in its ambitions. It has always been frank in that it intends to achieve complete equality. Whether or not i necessarily agree with that movement, I admire its honesty and its undoubted sincerity. I congratulate it on its fantastic recent success.

In actual fact, I think you are acting disingenuously as a supposedly neutral moderator in even raising that very separate issue. In raising this point, I wish to say you are not neutral, whether or not you claim to be. Because homosexual marriage has no relevance to abortion. Even during the recent marriage referendum debates, that much would have been considered indisputable.

The pro-choice group (and indeed the pro-life group) is characterized by too many half-truths and too much insincerity for my liking.

With 2,718 posts, I think you would have worked out boards at this stage! I don't believe K-9 was in 'mod mode' there, just 'ordinary concerned boardsie mode'. Dear oh dear.

conorh91 wrote: »

Medical evidence is considered almost totally irrelevant. That's the problem I have with both sides.

And as for this nugget. If only it was left to the medical evidence - the doctors, in conjunction with their patients - and their best interests, to make these decisions.

K-9 wrote: »

You're suggesting we can't even legislate for rape or incest cases (even if morally correct) as we'll inevitably end up with liberalised abortion laws.

Where am I suggesting that?

I'm surprised to learn this is my viewpoint.

Link please?

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe you can state what you meant by the above.

I have no reason to try and prove your error.

Never have I suggested that legislative concessions will result in "liberalized abortion laws".

Your bizarre conclusions ought not be entertained in this forum, and I see no reason to defend a claim I have never made, except by your misunderstanding.

Completely bizarre musings on your behalf.

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe you can state what you meant by the above.

Meant by what, exactly? I have tried to answer a question, but apparently the answer was not suitable.

I cannot even decipher what you are asking, since you seemingly refuse to specify

Might I remind you of the forum charter…

This forum is for discussion and debate, we will not tolerate soapboxing. If you are here to "shout everyone down" with your opinions, we will see you as a negative contributor to the forum and will take appropriate action.

Black Menorca wrote: »

Both lives are precious and neither should be intentionally killed.

So even if the fetus will not survive outside the womb and by keeping it in the womb you are putting a woman's life/future health at risk you still think its ok to let that happen?

A fine example of humanity you are!!

And please don't come back with one of your vague answers, just tell us yes or no, would you happily let a woman suffer and risk her life/health for something that will not survive outside the womb....

YES OR NO??

Are we stuck in an infinite loop now? Savita was already miscarrying when she first requested an abortion. Granting her request would just be speeding up the inevitable failure of the pregnancy.

Black Menorca wrote: »

I can't comprehend infinity as a concept, but I daresay I'll not be changing my opinions on the intentional taking of unborn life, anytime soon.

So if a woman is at risk of death, its still wrong to intentionally take unborn life so she can survive?

Black Menorca wrote: »

Where there is a direct, physical risk to a mother's life, all necessary medical interventions should be carried out, with the intention to save her life.

Even if the death of the baby is a tragic, unintended consequence.

But is isn't an unintended consequence. Removing a foetus before 24 weeks because the woman's life is at risk means almost certain death for one of the parties. Any doctor carrying out an abortion before a certain gestational period knows they are targeting the unborn.

How come directly targeting the unborn is ok when a woman's life is at risk? I mean, I can't target someone else's life to take something I need if my life is at risk, such as a heart if I need a transplant.

Black Menorca wrote: »

Because the intention of the procedure is to save the mother's life.

The intention is to remove the unborn to save the woman's life. Why is it ok to deliberately target one life to save another?