8th Amendment

conorh91

lazygal wrote: »

Is sheer volume the new large bulk?

Pretty synonymous.

It's not a matter of size in the first place, but if you insist… how big is your bulk?

traprunner

Dublin declaration has been show up as a farce. I can sign it under any name I wish. So you need to find another bone as it has been discredited.

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

Of course not. I am not a medical professional, let alone an eligible medical professional. I don't consider medical students, nurses, midwives, GPs, or doctors without specialties, to be eligible professionals either. I assume from your previous comments that you agree.

I am concerned about the sheer volume of medical experts with relevant expertise, many of them leading experts in their respective fields, who have had letters published in broadsheet newspapers, and whose names also appear on the Dublin declaration website.

Funnily enough I signed it though, as a Jedi Knight. It worked.

conorh91

conorh91 wrote: »

I am concerned about the sheer volume of medical experts with relevant expertise, many of them leading experts in their respective fields, who have had letters published in broadsheet newspapers, and whose names also appear on the Dublin declaration website.

THEN

traprunner wrote: »

Dublin declaration has been show up as a farce. I can sign it under any name I wish.

I repeat, with sincere apologies for anyone who actually reads the thread.

conorh91 wrote: »

I am concerned about the sheer volume of medical experts with relevant expertise, many of them leading experts in their respective fields, who have had letters published in broadsheet newspapers, and whose names also appear on the Dublin declaration website.

volchitsa wrote: »

I signed it though, as a Jedi Knight...

sigh… OK volchista. That's nice for you. I can't reply with the same point individually every single time.

traprunner

conorh91 wrote: »

THEN



I repeat, with sincere apologies for anyone who actually reads the thread.





sigh… OK volchista. That's nice for you. I can't reply with the same point individually every single time.

So I forgot to quote an earlier post of yours where you quoted me. What about it? Don't you see the fact that any Tom, dick or Harry can sign it under whatever name they want totally devalues it?

PopePalpatine

Black Menorca wrote: »

And the relevance to my post you quoted?

You said it would have been immoral to grant Savita's first request for an abortion - i.e., the request that was made the day after she was told her foetus would be incompatible with life.

Are Legatus paying you extra for obstructing discussions?

conorh91

traprunner wrote: »

Don't you see the fact that any Tom, dick or Harry can sign it under whatever name they want totally devalues it?

Are you even being serious?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95987861&postcount=1755

traprunner

conorh91 wrote: »

Are you even being serious?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95987861&postcount=1755

No idea what you are getting at. If it's the fact that the same names appear on letters published then it is still possible that someone could sign pro-choice medical professions on the Dublin declaration too. Nothing appears to be stopping it. So my point still stands.

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You said it would have been immoral to grant Savita's first request for an abortion - i.e., the request that was made the day after she was told her foetus would be incompatible with life.

Are Legatus paying you extra for obstructing discussions?

Intentionally taking innocent human life is immoral, born or unborn, in my view.

Are you alleging Legatus, a fine and noble organisation, are paying me to post here?

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

Intentionally taking innocent human life is immoral, born or unborn, in my view.

Wait, now your personal opinion is relevant? What happened to being a citizen of the Republic, being therefore subject to the Constitution and all that? Make up your mind.

Black Menorca wrote: »

I am a citizen of the Republic and am therefore subject to the Constitution.

Whether I personally find a referendum result 'acceptable' is irrelevant.

PopePalpatine

Black Menorca wrote: »

Intentionally taking innocent human life is immoral, born or unborn, in my view.

It beats leaving a woman to die. The only way you could advocate something more callous to be done to Savita would be to forcefully convert her to Catholicism on her deathbed.<br />
<br />

Legatus, a fine and noble organisation

.

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

Wait, now your personal opinion is relevant? What happened to being a citizen of the Republic, being therefore subject to the Constitution and all that? Make up your mind.

I am in agreement with the Constitution in defending life, born and unborn.

conorh91

traprunner wrote: »

If it's the fact that the same names appear on letters published then it is still possible that someone could sign pro-choice medical professions on the Dublin declaration too.

They had the same message. This is delving into the ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure if an obstetrician or another specialist's name appeared in the letter pages of The Irish Times or any of the other publications, it would be corrected quick-smart.

Do you doubt the identity of the four or five GPs who signed the Doctors For Choice letter to The Irish Times too?

Well perhaps you lot might. It's so irrelevant, you've nothing to lose.

johnnyskeleton

PopePalatine, Black Menorca, cut it out

ProfessorPlum

Black Menorca wrote: »

Intentionally taking innocent human life is immoral, born or unborn, in my view.

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

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.

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.

conorh91

Black Menorca wrote: »

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.

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....

volchitsa

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.

Why "of course"? Are the two lives of exactly equal worth or not?

If the fetus can be saved at the cost of the mother's life, shouldn't that be the choice made, let's say, 50% of the time? According to your logic it should.

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

Why "of course"? Are the two lives of exactly equal worth or not?

If the fetus can be saved at the cost of the mother's life, shouldn't that be the choice made, let's say, 50% of the time? According to your logic it should.

It's all about intent. Always has been for me.

volchitsa

Black Menorca wrote: »

It's all about intent. Always has been for me.

But if your intent is to save the fetus, and this "unfortunately results in the woman's death", what's the difference as far as you're concerned?

Seeing as you claim the two should be considered equally, that is.

Or do you?

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

But if your intent is to save the fetus, and this "unfortunately results in the woman's death", what's the difference as far as you're concerned?

Seeing as you claim the two should be considered equally, that is.

Or do you?

Save both. Cherish mother and baby.

K-9

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.

volchitsa

Black Menorca wrote: »

Save both. Cherish mother and baby.

Sometimes that can't be done, as you recognized yourself, when you said it was about intent.

So my question is why did you say that in those cases, then "of course" saving the mother should take priority?

That's an acknowledgement that the two lives aren't actually equivalent, and the mother's life is in fact worth more. That can only be because you accept that the unborn fetus does not really deserve the same rights as the woman when it comes down to it.

So your whole claim is based on a pretence that even you can't fully stand behind, never mind convince others.

ProfessorPlum

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

K-9 wrote: »

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.

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.

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

ProfessorPlum

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

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.

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

It's pointing out the problem with any slippery slope example.

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.

conorh91

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

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....

Maybe you can state what you meant by the above.

conorh91

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

Or you could just answer my simple question about what you meant. Pretty simple really. I suppose it's the internet though and you've your keyboard drawn.

conorh91

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.

anothernight

conorh91 wrote: »

Where am I suggesting that?

I'm surprised to learn this is my viewpoint.

Link please?

Well, what exactly do you expect to find if we "slip down that slope"? Feel free to state it outright, if you're offended at K-9's conclusion from your post.

I do have a link for you though, here.

johnnyskeleton

conorh91 wrote: »

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

He's asking what you mean by the slippery slope, specifically where you believe the end point of the slippery slope is.

He does not believe that legislating for abortion in rape cases will necessarily or possibly lead to abortion on demand. You agree with him and state that this is not what you meant. Presumably you do not believe the slippery slope of legislating for abortion in rape cases will lead to abortion on demand.

So the question is where do you think it will lead?

You don't have to answer, but for the sake of a tidy tread if you don't want to answer lets hear no more about it.

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

Sometimes that can't be done, as you recognized yourself, when you said it was about intent.

So my question is why did you say that in those cases, then "of course" saving the mother should take priority?

That's an acknowledgement that the two lives aren't actually equivalent, and the mother's life is in fact worth more. That can only be because you accept that the unborn fetus does not really deserve the same rights as the woman when it comes down to it.

So your whole claim is based on a pretence that even you can't fully stand behind, never mind convince others.

Both lives are precious and neither should be intentionally killed.

frag420

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??

Black Menorca

frag420 wrote: »

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??

Happily?

Of course not.

Intentionally taking innocent human life is never justified in my world view.

PopePalpatine

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

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Are we stuck in an infinite loop now?

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.

lazygal

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

lazygal wrote: »

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

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.

lazygal

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

lazygal wrote: »

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.

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

lazygal

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?

oscarBravo

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.

We're heading deeply into "mental reservation" territory now.

For those not familiar with this peculiarly Catholic concept: basically it involves lying to yourself about the fact that you're lying by omission, so that you can feel self-righteous about not lying.

In this case, as long as you tell yourself the lie that the death of the foetus is an "unintended consequence" of terminating a 20-week pregnancy, then it's OK. If you are honest with yourself about it, it's not OK.

Unyielding dogma sometimes demands strange mental gymnastics of its adherents.

Black Menorca

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're heading deeply into "mental reservation" territory now.

For those not familiar with this peculiarly Catholic concept: basically it involves lying to yourself about the fact that you're lying by omission, so that you can feel self-righteous about not lying.

In this case, as long as you tell yourself the lie that the death of the foetus is an "unintended consequence" of terminating a 20-week pregnancy, then it's OK. If you are honest with yourself about it, it's not OK.

Unyielding dogma sometimes demands strange mental gymnastics of its adherents.

Ok, I'm a liar.

Very mature OB. Stay classy.

Penny Tration

Black Menorca wrote: »

Ok, I'm a liar.

Very mature OB. Stay classy.

Not exactly refuting it.

Black Menorca

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Not exactly refuting it.

It's all about intent in my book.

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

It's all about intent in my book.

What about the intent to remove the unborn to save the life of a woman? Is that acceptable?

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

What about the intent to remove the unborn to save the life of a woman? Is that acceptable?

Absolutely.