Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

8th Amendment

1…5961636465

Comments

  • #1802
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Absolutely.
    Even when the unborn is directly targeted? How is that different from targeting the born?


  • #1803
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Stay classy.

    When I'm up against a mentality that believes a suicidal teenager who's been raped by her father should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, to the extent of incarceration if necessary, I'm not in the ha'penny place when it comes to staying classy.


  • #1804
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    lazygal wrote: »
    Even when the unborn is directly targeted? How is that different from targeting the born?

    The intent is to save the mother's life from a direct physical threat.


  • #1805
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    When I'm up against a mentality that believes a suicidal teenager who's been raped by her father should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, to the extent of incarceration if necessary, I'm not in the ha'penny place when it comes to staying classy.

    I don't believe killing her innocent unborn baby can ever be justified.


  • #1806
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    When I'm up against a mentality that believes a suicidal teenager who's been raped by her father should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, to the extent of incarceration if necessary, I'm not in the ha'penny place when it comes to staying classy.

    What you are saying is the wedge always used by Pro-Choice.. Those circumstances are not that of 99.9999 percent of women who abort.

    As horrific as the case is. The bottom line is that circumstances don't determine the objective good of a human being that exists from conception and has intrinsic value that is not given by anyone. Once we create laws that devalue the objective value or worth of the person then we no longer have any principles. If we can't respect human life then we are doom as a race.


  • Advertisement
  • #1807
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    am946745 wrote: »
    What you are saying is the wedge always used by Pro-Choice.. Those circumstances are not that of 99.9999 percent of women who abort.
    No, they are not. It's an extreme example chosen to show that there is no circumstance too horrific for the po-faced attitude that a woman has a duty to shut up and stay pregnant.
    As horrific as the case is. The bottom line is that circumstances don't determine the objective good of a human being that exists from conception and has intrinsic value that is not given by anyone.
    That's idea that a fertilised egg has the same value rights as an actual person is a truly ridiculous basis for denying a woman her bodily integrity.


  • #1808
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    am946745 wrote: »
    What you are saying is the wedge always used by Pro-Choice.. Those circumstances are not that of 99.9999 percent of women who abort.

    As horrific as the case is. The bottom line is that circumstances don't determine the objective good of a human being that exists from conception and has intrinsic value that is not given by anyone. Once we create laws that devalue the objective value or worth of the person then we no longer have any principles. If we can't respect human life then we are doom as a race.
    I stilll don't understand why its ok to directly target the unborn because someone else's life is at risk. Why does the right to life of a foetus depend on a woman's life not being at risk? At what risk to life does the ability to kill the unborn kick in? 1%, 50%, real probable and substantial or 100% risk?


  • #1809
    anothernight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭anothernight


    am946745 wrote: »
    What you are saying is the wedge always used by Pro-Choice.. Those circumstances are not that of 99.9999 percent of women who abort.

    As horrific as the case is. The bottom line is that circumstances don't determine the objective good of a human being that exists from conception and has intrinsic value that is not given by anyone. Once we create laws that devalue the objective value or worth of the person then we no longer have any principles. If we can't respect human life then we are doom as a race.

    If you had a school where the curriculum or style of teaching caused that a small percentage of children were left behind, and by the end of the year, were at a much lower level than their peers, would you support changing the style/curriculum? Or would you just call it a wedge and pretend that those children weren't being failed by the school's system?

    Are you against treatment for some very rare cancers, because 99% of people won't get them anyway? Or would you just ignore them and call them a wedge too?

    Do you think we should only legislate for situations that most people (99.9999%!) are likely to be in? Are you sure it's a good idea to let people fall through the gaps, and dismiss them as a wedge? Last time I checked, a minority of the population is composed of women of childbearing age. Should we remove maternity services because 99.9999% of the population aren't going to need them?


  • #1810
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    lazygal wrote: »
    I stilll don't understand why its ok to directly target the unborn because someone else's life is at risk. Why does the right to life of a foetus depend on a woman's life not being at risk? At what risk to life does the ability to kill the unborn kick in? 1%, 50%, real probable and substantial or 100% risk?
    I trust our medical professionals to make that call, under the Medcial Council guidelines.


  • #1811
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,220 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Absolutely.
    But you won't say why, in a situation where both cannot be saved, and yet you say that both are exactly equal in your view, it wouldn't be equally acceptable to decide to save the fetus' life instead of its mother?

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • Advertisement
  • #1812
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    volchitsa wrote: »
    But you won't say why, in a situation where both cannot be saved, and yet you say that both are exactly equal in your view, it wouldn't be equally acceptable to decide to save the fetus' life instead of its mother?

    Maybe for you it is unacceptable. But I stand by the Constitution, X Case legislation and our Medical Council guidelines, where saving the mothers life is the intention, a termination is fully justified.


  • #1813
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Maybe for you it is unacceptable. But I stand by the Constitution, X Case legislation and our Medical Council guidelines, where saving the mothers life is the intention, a termination is fully justified.
    If both lives are equal, why is only one priortised in the event a woman's life is at risk? Is that because a foetus isn't really equal to a woman?


  • #1814
    Milana Sticky Klutz
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Milana Sticky Klutz


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    I trust our medical professionals to make that call, under the Medcial Council guidelines.

    But they don't trust the law to trust them to make that call, and so refrain from such decisions out of fear.


  • #1815
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    lazygal wrote: »
    If both lives are equal, why is only one priortised in the event a woman's life is at risk? Is that because a foetus isn't really equal to a woman?

    Thats a call, we as a nation, have made.


  • #1816
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Deleted User wrote: »
    But they don't trust the law to trust them to make that call, and so refrain from such decisions out of fear.

    Terminations happen in Irish hospitals when and where necessary, when the mother's like is under direct physical threat.


  • #1817
    Milana Sticky Klutz
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Milana Sticky Klutz


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Terminations happen in Irish hospitals when and where necessary, when the mother's like is under direct physical threat.

    And at no stage, not even one, has there ever been a delay that might have proved costly, due to uncertainty about the legal position?


  • #1818
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Deleted User wrote: »
    And at no stage, not even one, has there ever been a delay that might have proved costly, due to uncertainty about the legal position?

    I have no clue.


  • #1819
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Thats a call, we as a nation, have made.
    Have we?


  • #1820
    Milana Sticky Klutz
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Milana Sticky Klutz


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    I have no clue.

    If there were evidence of such delays, showing issues with the 8th, would you consider that it may be flawed?


  • #1821
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,220 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Thats a call, we as a nation, have made.
    So if we, as a nation, as a nation, were to extend that priority given to the mother over the fetus a good deal further, let's say to her health, you would be perfectly happy with that?

    If not, then why accept any degree of asymmetry at all, since you claim that both are entitled to equal rights?

    As it is, your claim seems to be that even though you personally feel that both are strictly equal, you're prefectly happy for us, as a nation, to decide otherwise, and to prioritise only one of the two - and always the same one. I don't think that's very egalitarian, do you? :eek:

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • Advertisement
  • #1822
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's idea that a fertilised egg has the same value rights as an actual person is a truly ridiculous basis for denying a woman her bodily integrity.

    Once you start breaking down the objective value of our humanity (no matter its stage of existence) then everything is up for debate. Our humanity is not subjective to what people think. That is why we have hundreds of abortion laws around the world depending on what people think or don't think should be respected as objectively human.

    A life is not a "choice" when it exists.


  • #1823
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,220 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    am946745 wrote: »
    Once you start breaking down the objective value of our humanity (no matter its stage of existence) then everything is up for debate. Our humanity is not subjective to what people think. That is why we have hundreds of abortion laws around the world depending on what people think or don't think should be respected as objectively human.

    A life is not a "choice" when it exists.
    Well then, maybe you'll be braver than Black Menarche. If your belief is based on the exact equivalence of all humanity, including the unborn, why should it be a foregone conclusion that the mother's life is systematically prioritised over the fetus'?

    There must be times when it would actually be easier to save the baby than the mother, and when it's 50/50, surely half of those times the fetus should get a go, not always the mother?

    Genuine question. This "equality" lark just doesn't make sense to me otherwise.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #1824
    anothernight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭anothernight


    am946745 wrote: »
    Once you start breaking down the objective value of our humanity (no matter its stage of existence)...
    (...)

    You mean, by ignoring the health and wellbeing of a small number of women, just because you don't think they are representative of all women of childbearing age?


  • #1825
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If there were evidence of such delays, showing issues with the 8th, would you consider that it may be flawed?

    No.


  • #1826
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So if we, as a nation, as a nation, were to extend that priority given to the mother over the fetus a good deal further, let's say to her health, you would be perfectly happy with that?

    If not, then why accept any degree of asymmetry at all, since you claim that both are entitled to equal rights?

    As it is, your claim seems to be that even though you personally feel that both are strictly equal, you're prefectly happy for us, as a nation, to decide otherwise, and to prioritise only one of the two - and always the same one. I don't think that's very egalitarian, do you? :eek:

    I am of a view that both mother and unborn baby are equally protected from their lives being intentionally taken.


  • #1827
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    The problem here is an Irish ability to abstract from reality so far that you can have a court case about someone who is in toxic shock and in urgent need of assistance.

    The reality is that pregnancies can go horribly wrong, women get raped, get cancer and need life-saving treatment, and various other things that are not even in the realms of abortion on demand.

    We have a harsh, thoughtless, dogmatic, legalistic and inhumane attitude to this at state level whatever about the general public's views which may have softened a bit.

    It's pretty bizarre by any standards.

    What really drove it home to me was when a woman I know in her 50s thought she could be pregnant due to a condom failure and because of serious heart problems and essential medication, she was considering hopping on a plane as neither herself nor the baby would have been likely to survive a pregnancy if she had to stop taking medication for her cardiac issues.

    Irish law on this is utterly insane.


  • #1828
    Milana Sticky Klutz
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Milana Sticky Klutz


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    No.

    So in summary,

    even if there was direct evidence available, to show that the 8th has caused delays in administering patients, to the extent of causing serious difficulties, you'd still not consider the 8th flawed?


  • #1829
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    The problem here is an Irish ability to abstract from reality so far that you can have a court case about someone who is in toxic shock and in urgent need of assistance.

    The reality is that pregnancies can go horribly wrong, women get raped, get cancer and need life-saving treatment, and various other things that are not even in the realms of abortion on demand.

    We have a harsh, thoughtless, dogmatic, legalistic and inhumane attitude to this at state level whatever about the general public's views which may have softened a bit.

    It's pretty bizarre by any standards.

    What really drove it home to me was when a woman I know in her 50s thought she could be pregnant due to a condom failure and because of serious heart problems and essential medication, she was considering hopping on a plane as neither herself nor the baby would have been likely to survive a pregnancy if she had to stop taking medication for her cardiac issues.

    Irish law on this is utterly insane.

    But which one of the scenarios above justify the intentional killing of an unborn baby?


  • #1830
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So in summary,

    even if there was direct evidence available, to show that the 8th has caused delays in administering patients, to the extent of causing serious difficulties, you'd still not consider the 8th flawed?

    What evidence?


  • Advertisement
  • #1831
    Milana Sticky Klutz
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Milana Sticky Klutz


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    What evidence?

    I don't have any to hand. It was a thought experiment, recall the question you answered earlier in this post

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96010494&postcount=1825

    I'm just adding the two elements of the questions together to create the full statement.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement