8th Amendment

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

Absolutely.

Even when the unborn is directly targeted? How is that different from targeting the born?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

Black Menorca

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.

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.

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.

Black Menorca

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?

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.

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

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

Have we?

Black Menorca

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?

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:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Black Menorca

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?

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?

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?

Black Menorca

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.

Black Menorca

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Without the evidence to back you up, I see no reason to fault the 8th.

Black Menorca

Black Menorca wrote: »

Without the evidence to back you up, I see no reason to fault the 8th.

The question has the conditional built in. Note the term 'if' at the beginning of the question to which you answered no to.

Black Menorca

Deleted User wrote: »

The question has the conditional built in. Note the term 'if' at the beginning of the question to which you answered no to.

Come back to me with evidence and we'll get into it.

Black Menorca

Black Menorca wrote: »

Come back to me with evidence and we'll get into it.

That's not a thought experiment.

Black Menorca

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not a thought experiment.

Spot on.

SpaceTime

Not replying to this thread anymore - round & round in circles and it just makes me feel more and more like packing my stuff & grabbing a plane somewhere a little less bound by dogma.

am946745

SpaceTime wrote: »

Not replying to this thread anymore - round & round in circles and it just makes me feel more and more like packing my stuff & grabbing a plane somewhere a little less bound by dogma.

Being pro-life is not a dogmatic stance, its a reasonable stance.

Black Menorca

SpaceTime wrote: »

Not replying to this thread anymore - round & round in circles and it just makes me feel more and more like packing my stuff & grabbing a plane somewhere a little less bound by dogma.

There's a big world out there to be seen. Happy trails, if you decide to go.

Black Menorca

am946745 wrote: »

Being pro-life is not a dogmatic stance, its a reasonable stance.

I thought he/she was talking about the abortion lobby's dogma.

anothernight

SpaceTime wrote: »

Not replying to this thread anymore - round & round in circles and it just makes me feel more and more like packing my stuff & grabbing a plane somewhere a little less bound by dogma.

You won't regret it.

I grew up in a country where abortion has been legal for decades, but my family were pro-life for religious reasons. Then we moved to Ireland... and saw why our opinion on the matter was wrong. Ironic eh?

Nothing quite like having your very religious mother say "it's illegal even in cases of rape? That's barbaric."

volchitsa

Black Menorca wrote: »

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

So should terminations of mothers happen when the fetus' life is under direct physical threat?
Seeing as you claim they have equal rights, that is.

Here's a real-life example where the father was asked to choose which of the two to save - but of course in Ireland the father can't actually choose, since it's the constitution that decides. I'd say both would likely die while the lawyers were being consulted - yet another reason to get rid of the 8th.
http://doc2doc.bmj.com/forums/open-clinical_medical-ethics_should-saved-mother-child

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

So should terminations of mothers happen when the fetus' life is under direct physical threat?
Seeing as you claim they have equal rights, that is.

Here's a real-life example where the father was asked to choose which of the two to save - but of course in Ireland the father can't actually choose, since it's the constitution that decides. I'd say both would likely die while the lawyers were being consulted - yet another reason to get rid of the 8th.
http://doc2doc.bmj.com/forums/open-clinical_medical-ethics_should-saved-mother-child

Really, give us a real, documented example instead of a third hand account on Q & A forum.

seriously.

volchitsa

Black Menorca wrote: »

Really, give us a real, documented example instead of a third hand account on Q & A forum.

seriously.

The question was about whether you think it should potentially happen, not what you think about individual cases. That was just to give an example of the kind of situation that might arise.

But that's grand. It's clear as day that you obviously realize you can't reply honestly without destroying the entire basis of your own argument. I've finished with you for now.

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

The question was about whether you think it should potentially happen, not what you think about individual cases. That was just to give an example of the kind of situation that might arise.

But that's grand. It's clear as day that you obviously realize you can't reply honestly without destroying the entire basis of your own argument. I've finished with you for now.

Sound.

The 8th Stands, for now. And I will defend it if it comes under attack.

PopePalpatine

I can't help but think that involves re-visiting the events of 6th July 1994 in Buswell's Hotel, and hoping that the van doesn't get caught this time.

Black Menorca wrote: »

I thought he/she was talking about the abortion lobby's dogma.

Black Menorca

That one went way over my head.

pmasterson95

Black Menorca wrote: »

That one went way over my head.

That does happen quite a lot to you I have noticed.

Black Menorca

Black Menorca wrote: »

Come back to me with evidence and we'll get into it.

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not a thought experiment.

Black Menorca wrote: »

Spot on.

The point of thought experiments is that we don't actually need to see people suffer, we don't have to record and see pain for us to understand it can occur. Using logic and reasoning, we can reach decisions without the need for actual disaster.

Russia 1975
General: "If we do fire a nuclear warhead at the USA, do you not think there will be an almost apocalyptic war, with devastating consequences for the planet?"
Politician: "Come back to me with evidence and we'll get into it".

Isn't really an acceptable (or humane) way to attempt to understand things.

Just as several cases were predicted (X,Y) long before they occurred, we can test the conditions of the 8th that may bring about situations that were unintended. You seem to be refusing to do this though?

Gael23

eire4 wrote: »

I would say yes we will and can see it happening within the lifetime of the next government if said government proves stable enough.

Thats the problem. I think the next government will be as unstable as this of the 80s and fall in a matter of months.

Loafing Oaf

Gael23 wrote: »

Thats the problem. I think the next government will be as unstable as this of the 80s and fall in a matter of months.

If the government is FG + Lab + Inds/minor parties you'd have to think they'd be keen to get the referendum out of the way as soon as possible though. I don't see why it couldn't be held within six months of a GE, which means it could be less than a year away if the election happens in October/November this year...