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

blanch152 wrote: »

They never were children.

Nothing has changed as a result of the Supreme Court.

You're right that nothing changed as a result of the supreme court judgement.

blanch152 wrote: »

Prior to the 8th, the only right that the unborn had was the right to life, the 8th gave that right equal status to the right to life of the mother, and repealing the 8th only restores the status quo ante.

prior to the 8th the unborn did not have a constitutional right to life. It only has that because of the 8th. If the 8th is repealed then the unborn will have no constitutional rights.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I agree. But we are being asked to make this great leap forward. Past a society that places abortion as an option of last resort to of first resort. Wheres the support. Wheres the free contrceptives. Wheres tackling dads who flee the scene. Wheres se education. Wheres adoption.

Who is putting it in "first resort" though? I certainly am not. Nor is anyone else I have met over this entire campaign. Everyone I know wants it to be a choice that is available. Nothing more. Nothing less. Its relative place in the queue of choices seems to be your narrative. Not theirs.

As for the other things you list, where are they indeed. Every pro choice campaigner I have met supports or even campaigns for all those things too.

An interesting question though is why historically are the people against abortion ALSO against some or all the things you have listed however? Take the catholic church for example. What is their position on abortion historically? and what historically has their position been on things like contraceptive?

Why is it people resist better, more comprehensive, and most importantly much EARLIER sexual education in our schools? I campaign for that. Why is it the only people I have had tell me it is a bad idea ALSO the people who are against abortion? Whereas all the pro choice people I know are FOR such education.

You talk about "support" for example. Who here is not for support and welfare? Well actually it was an ANTI abortion speaker..... again..... on this very thread who was against it. Telling us there should be no social welfare, and no financial support for single parents. So yes, ask those anti choice voters where the support is. The rest of us want to offer it.

We should be very skeptical of people who are against abortion but also against the things that would work to reduce it. But of course you are anti skepticism so I guess leave that work to us who are not.

So yes, where are these things indeed! Campaigning for pro choice is not mutually exclusive with the others. I campaign for them all. Hard.

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is fundamentally a conscience issue. It centres on whether life in the womb is fully human - though different to a walking talking person.

And is it not amazing that the people who seemingly do not want to have that exact conversation, are the anti choice speakers? The Pro choice ones have been TRYING To have that conversation. The anti choicers just run away.

I am in entire agreement with you. The core, if not the entire, issue around abortion should be about whether the fetus in the womb is a "Human". Not "Human" in the sense of biological taxonomy.... but in terms of the philosophy of what it actually means to be human.

And you know why I suspect they do not want to have that conversation? Because they know the result of it already. They know what attributes people use to define that version of the word "Human". And they know as well as I do that the attributes in question are PERCISLEY the ones a 10/12/16 week old fetus lacks.

Not partially lacks.

ENTIRELY lacks.

The issue for me is a linguistic one even before we have the debate at the level of philosophy. In that we have one word "Human" and it means more than one thing. But the anti choice people I have spoken with on this thread seem to conflate them all into one.

antiskeptic wrote: »

By fully human I mean fully human. Not fully human with equivocation. Your equivocating: which was my point.

But nuance behind what we mean by the word "Human" in any given context is exactly what is required. People are hiding behind the word because they know it has enough meanings and flexibility that it forms a huge linguistic shield.

There is a reason they are more interested in the word than to dig beneath it for nuance and content. And that is because they know the nuance and content will not support their position. I know it supports mine. So I am happy to have that conversation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your effectively saying the fetus isnt fully human enough. Which is grand - not fully human.

Again it depends what you mean by "Human". If you are talking about biological taxonomy then it is human. Fully, 100% human.

If you are talking about "Human" as in Humanity, Personhood, and all the other philosophical terminology related to "Human"..... then a fetus at 10 weeks (when the majority of choice based abortion occurs) it is not human at all, 0%.

So terminology is important, yet you appear to think noticing that is merely "equivocation". Which is just deflection. Hide the actually important stuff behind a word, then stand in front of that word like a shield. That is what the anti choice approach has been on the thread.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I dont think its to be measured objectively. Youd need God or something. And he doesnt tend to publish scientific papers.

Yea I imagine not existing really plays havoc with meeting the deadlines the average publishing house tends to try and hold to.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Dya ever see those 'scientific' studies measuring the power of prayer? A bunch of christians set to praying for healing of the sick or something.

It presupposes God (if he's there) wants to be measured.

The study in question was quite scientific in it's approach in fact as it double blinded well. In that it did not just have a group of sick people who were prayed for, and a group that were not. That would have been good, but not good enough.

What they also added was a distinction between more than 2 groups. And the distinction was that some of the people knew where they were being prayed for or not, while the other groups did not.

And the results were interesting. The prayer not only showed no efficacy at all.......... but in fact the people who knew (or believed themselves to be, even when they were not) prayed for fared actively worse.

And this shows how science informs morality for example, even though people say it does not. We have positive scientific data that suggests that telling a sick person you will pray for them could actively cause them harm. How many busy body theists do you think therefore desist from doing so? I don't know, but I do know I still see many of them doing it.

The gulf between science and morality is not as large as many like to pretend. Morality is about evaluating the value of the result of your actions. Science is about telling us what the result of our actions is. They are therefore inextricably linked.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I'm seeing a HUGE influx of pro-life sponsored posts on social media.

Remember: Do not react, do not comment, and absolutely do not share them. On Facebook, click the icon on the top-right and hide it from your newsfeed.

This tells the algorithm that you, your friends, and people like you don't want to see them and it will show them less.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/my-circumstances-were-the-same-as-savita-halappanavar-1.3492038

In January 2014, my husband and I sat waiting in the departure lounge to board our flight to Liverpool at 7am. I was extremely unwell; I had pains going down the entire left side of my body and across my stomach.

I was almost 20 weeks pregnant, my waters (amniotic fluid) were broken for seven weeks and had changed from running clear to pink in the last few days. I was getting symptoms of septicaemia. I had been refused care by my hospital because my baby still had a heartbeat, even though it had no chance of survival.

My circumstances were the same as a young woman who had died called Savita Halappanavar, and a new law, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, had been in force for nine days.

Interesting article from the Irish times about a woman who had to travel to the UK for treatment because she couldn't get it here.

Do we as a nation respect the laws of this land or not? If we do, we should be campaigning for their enforcement. That includes the 8th amendment. That means prosecuting all of those women that are and continue to take abortion pills in Ireland. If you vote no you are voting for that to happen. For the law not to be enforced makes a mockery of the law. If you don’t think it’s right for women to be sentenced to 14 years for taking abortion pills you should vote yes. This referendum is a legal question. The abortion debate comes after and we can battle that out with our government.

Aniya Moldy Trowel wrote: »

The 8th amendment was never meant to create situations where women whose lives were in danger would be denied an equal right to life.

But it has created that situation many times so it is not fit for purpose and needs to be repealed.

You accept that that 8th is not working but your wish is for it to remain unchanged and therefore nothing changes

....... wrote: »

I actually find the In Her Shoes stories too harrowing to read anymore.

I completely agree but I like to read the stories and feel that I am supporting each woman and their family by grieving with them.

Flying Fox wrote: »

Spoke to a guy in his early 40s yesterday, he told me he's voting No because he knows that girls are using abortion as an excuse to go for a weekend away in England. His teenage son then says "if you make it legal they'll all be doing it". How do you even attempt to get through to people like this?

How can anyone have such a disgusting view of women?

Aniya Moldy Trowel wrote: »

The 8th amendment was never meant to create situations where women whose lives were in danger would be denied an equal right to life. This seems to be something that is being left open to interpretation and needs to be fully clarified and understood by doctors and maternity hospitals across the country.

Well this is the crux of the matter. There are lots of things the 8th was "never meant to do", but now it's doing them. We can't keep hacking away at the constitution to try and repair an amendment that was broken in the first place. Remove it, and put its intent into legislation. That way, if the intent goes off track, it can be corrected easily.

The 8th cannot be clarified by doctors and maternity hospitals. They are not legislators.

They can only do what they are legally permitted to do, and the uncertainty around the 8th means that they are not permitted to do what is necessary to treat pregnant women.

At present, "healthy" foetuses from "healthy" mothers are already being aborted. That ship has sailed. Literally.

There is no option to stop abortion, only to bring it back under Irish jurisdiction.

Aniya Moldy Trowel wrote: »

The 8th amendment was never meant to create situations where women whose lives were in danger would be denied an equal right to life. This seems to be something that is being left open to interpretation and needs to be fully clarified and understood by doctors and maternity hospitals across the country.

However, allowing abortion for all pregnancies up to 12 weeks is not, in my view, the answer, as it will lead to the aborting of healthy foetuses being carried by healthy mothers.

The fact is interpretation of an ambiguous law comes from case law;for case law to exist there needs to be a case, and for a case to happen things need to go wrong and doctors need to get sued. Doctors do not want to be sued, so they won’t risk making what can be construed as a mistake on this, which is why the life of the foetus will always trump the mother while this amendment is in place.