8th Amendment

L1011

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

I voiced my concerns in the last abortion referendum and although I was just too young to vote, I know that most of my then immediate family were also no voters.

Good - as the No side was the rational one in that case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill,_2002_%28Ireland%29

Is it so in-grained in you to say No to anything that we can get around it by asking the question backwards?

oscarBravo

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

In my day we called it defending the right to life.

By exporting the problem? What are you actually achieving by pretending that Irish women don't have abortions?

L1011 wrote: »

Is it so in-grained in you to say No to anything that we can get around it by asking the question backwards?

It's worth a try. :pac:

Glenman

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Yes please.



If Labour are going to push to repeal the 8th amendment, I'll more than likely give them my vote instead of spoiling my vote.

But what about "Equality" for the unborn?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/medical-expert-science-is-conclusive-that-unborn-babies-feel-horrific-pain

Zubeneschamali

Glenman wrote: »

But what about "Equality" for the unborn?

It's a ridiculous concept. A single fertilized cell, with less independent life than an amoeba, is supposed to be legally equal to my actual children?

Nope.

No Voter And Proud

Glenman wrote: »

But what about "Equality" for the unborn?

It's a good point.
A child at 24 weeks is potentially viable. Moreso, it stands a good chance of survival.

Equality for some - those with international moneybags backers like the yes campaign!

johnnyskeleton

Mod: As a general rule, the more sensitive a subject the more temptation you might feel to use rhetoric, name calling etc.

Which is why in a thread like this I would ask everyone to be on their best behaviour

seamus

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

It's a good point.
A child at 24 weeks is potentially viable. Moreso, it stands a good chance of survival.

Yeah and that's generally why practically nowhere permits late-term abortions.

Of course, the anti-abortion side will always point to the 1% of abortions carried out after 20 weeks and not the 99% carried out before then.

Can we have a mature discussion about this for once rather than wild claims and fringe cases?

I won't hold my breath though.

No Voter And Proud

You can't propose to allow abortions only at a certain timeframe. Either it's wrong morally or it isn't.

Glenman

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's a ridiculous concept. A single fertilized cell, with less independent life than an amoeba, is supposed to be legally equal to my actual children?

Nope.

Life is precious from conception until natural death.

seamus

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

You can't propose to allow abortions only at a certain timeframe. Either it's wrong morally or it isn't.

Well of course you can. Otherwise you're basically claiming that there is no difference throughout the whole of gestation.

By that logic the morning-after pill is morally wrong, which is of course nonsense, seeing as there's nothing in there except a potentially fertilised egg.

Zubeneschamali

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

You can't propose to allow abortions only at a certain timeframe. Either it's wrong morally or it isn't.

On the contrary - a day before a baby is born, it is clearly a baby. A day after it is fertilized, it is just a cell. Gradually in between the two, it grows from one into the other. These are obvious and simple facts.

The only way the single cell "unborn" can be equal is if you think potential counts, or you believe in some sort of magic or spirit.

L1011

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Equality for some - those with international moneybags backers like the yes campaign!

One word - Legatus.

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

Except the floodgates are already open - to the United Kingdom. Legal abortion, recognized in Irish law for Irish women.

What you mean is, if it's removed, then perhaps the pretence that Irish women don't have abortions will end. That's the most that could happen.

No one forces women to have abortions.

Ireland stands by protecting mother and unborn baby through the 8th Amendment. I am proud that as a nation we continue to do so.

oscarBravo

Black Menorca wrote: »

No one forces women to have abortions.

No, they just do it for the sheer fun of it all.

Ireland stands by protecting mother and unborn baby through the 8th Amendment. I am proud that as a nation we continue to do so.

We don't. We just export the problem. Pretending really, really hard that this isn't true doesn't make it so.

Not a NSA agent

Black Menorca wrote: »

No one forces women to have abortions.

Ireland stands by protecting mother and unborn baby through the 8th Amendment. I am proud that as a nation we continue to do so.

They mother is only considered if she is going to die, a woman can suffer any other health problems and its tough ****.

seamus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Pretending really, really hard that this isn't true doesn't make it so.

Seriously. It's like claiming that nobody in your house takes a sh1t because there aren't piles of sh1t lying around everywhere.

Black Menorca

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, they just do it for the sheer fun of it all.

We don't. We just export the problem. Pretending really, really hard that this isn't true doesn't make it so.

The Irish nation won't be bullied by agents for the abortion industry. We've proved that with the passing of the 8th in 1983 and the passing of the X Case legislation only last year.

Abortion is a crime in Ireland and I have faith the Irish people will maintain this situation if there is another assault on mothers and their babies in the coming years.

Huntergonzo

Black Menorca wrote: »

No one forces women to have abortions.

Ireland stands by protecting mother and unborn baby through the 8th Amendment. I am proud that as a nation we continue to do so.

I'm utterly ashamed of the 8th amendment, it doesn't protect women infact it actually facilitates harming women by telling them under no uncertain terms, the state is in control of your body, you are not, it's disgusting and hopefully we won't have to see another tragic like that of Savita Halappanavar before this appalling amendment is repealed.

Black Menorca

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I'm utterly ashamed of the 8th amendment, it doesn't protect women infact it actually facilitates harming women by telling them under no uncertain terms, the state is in control of your body, you are not, it's disgusting and hopefully we won't have to see another tragic like that of Savita Halappanavar before this appalling amendment is repealed.

Thats right. Use Savita to support abortion liberalisation. Now that is shameful on a few levels.

Zubeneschamali

Black Menorca wrote: »

The Irish nation won't be bullied by agents for the abortion industry. We've proved that with the passing of the 8th in 1983 and the passing of the X Case legislation only last year.

This is all entirely in your head.

Both the 8th and last years legislation make abortion legal in Ireland.

Abortion was strictly, no-nonsense illegal in 1982 before all this Pro-Life nonsense started.

And when the Attorney General tried to enforce the 8th amendment giving us the X case, we quickly passed a referendum stopping him from protecting the life of the unborn by preventing women travelling for abortions..

Black Menorca

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is all entirely in your head.

Both the 8th and last years legislation make abortion legal in Ireland.

Abortion was strictly, no-nonsense illegal in 1982 before all this Pro-Life nonsense started.

And when the Attorney General tried to enforce the 8th amendment giving us the X case, we quickly passed a referendum stopping him from protecting the life of the unborn by preventing women travelling for abortions..

So I'll ask again, give me one example of an intentional taking of an unborn life. Just one.

Zubeneschamali

Black Menorca wrote: »

Thats right. Use Savita to support abortion liberalisation. Now that is shameful on a few levels.

If Savita Halappanaver had received an abortion when she asked for it, as she would have in India, she'd be alive today. Her husband made this point very soon after her death. Do you think he should be ashamed of himself?

I think he's a bit of a hero.

Black Menorca

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If Savita Halappanaver had received an abortion when she asked for it, as she would have in India, she'd be alive today. Her husband made this point very soon after her death. Do you think he should be ashamed of himself?

I think he's a bit of a hero.

Savita's death was down to lack of basic medical care. Tragically.

There were three separate reports written on the circumstances and not one suggested an abortion was a suitable option.

Yet the abortion advocates continually use Savita for their own agenda. sick if you ask me.

Zubeneschamali

Black Menorca wrote: »

There were three separate reports written on the circumstances and not one suggested an abortion was a suitable option.

Wrong:

1. Compliance with guidelines on the management of early second trimester inevitable miscarriage. This should recognise possible rapid patient deterioration, possibly within a few hours, from sepsis to severe sepsis to septic shock. It should also recognise the high mortality rate, of up to 60 percent, associated with this. These guidelines should include the same emphases as those for infection and pregnancy listed in recommendation 3.[69] The panel recommended such guidelines should include guidelines relating to expediting delivery for clinical reasons, including "medical and surgical termination" based on the expertise available and legal feasibility.[70]

Huntergonzo

Black Menorca wrote: »

Thats right. Use Savita to support abortion liberalisation. Now that is shameful on a few levels.

I'm not using her, what a low suggestion, but the likes of you are ignoring her, it's disgraceful!

endacl

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

You can't propose to allow abortions only at a certain timeframe. Either it's wrong morally or it isn't.

Of course you can set a timeframe. That's what every jurisdiction that provides for choice does. Why will it be different here?

Black Menorca

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Wrong:

1. Compliance with guidelines on the management of early second trimester inevitable miscarriage. This should recognise possible rapid patient deterioration, possibly within a few hours, from sepsis to severe sepsis to septic shock. It should also recognise the high mortality rate, of up to 60 percent, associated with this. These guidelines should include the same emphases as those for infection and pregnancy listed in recommendation 3.[69] The panel recommended such guidelines should include guidelines relating to expediting delivery for clinical reasons, including "medical and surgical termination" based on the expertise available and legal feasibility.[70]

Poor form, even from you.

Nowehere, in any of the reports, did they suggest that not carrying out an abortion, caused or was a factor if Savita's death.

No amount of wishing otherwise will change that.

Using Savita's death like this really is low.

Huntergonzo

Black Menorca wrote: »

Poor form, even from you.

Nowehere, in any of the reports, did they suggest that not carrying out an abortion, caused or was a factor if Savita's death.

No amount of wishing otherwise will change that.

Using Savita's death like this really is low.

What's truly low is that you would clearly rather see more deaths like that of Savita than rights to protect these women so you should admit as much. What's your main issue with abortion anyway, do you not believe women should have control over their own bodies?

Zubeneschamali

Black Menorca wrote: »

Nowehere, in any of the reports, did they suggest that not carrying out an abortion, caused or was a factor if Savita's death.

There is no other way to summarise yesterday’s main testimony to the Savita Halappanavar inquest other than that, in the view of an expert witness, restrictive Irish abortion laws cost Ms Halappanavar her life.
Dr Peter Boylan’s statement that Ms Halappanavar would most likely be with us today if she’d been given a termination earlier may be just an opinion, but it is the opinion of one of the most eminent obstetricians in the State.
As the former master and current clinical director of the National Maternity Hospital, with extensive professional experience in the UK and US as well as Ireland, Dr Boylan clearly has vast experience.

Atomic Pineapple

Black Menorca wrote: »

Poor form, even from you.

Nowehere, in any of the reports, did they suggest that not carrying out an abortion, caused or was a factor if Savita's death.

No amount of wishing otherwise will change that.

Using Savita's death like this really is low.

It's a recommendation for future guidelines in such instances making it relevant, attempting to make people feel shame for bringing up a relevant topic suggests you are uncomfortable discussing it but these are the very real facts and cases that both sides need to look at and broadly and openly discuss in a common sense manner to move the country forward and make sure women are safe and protected during a dangerous time of their lives while also making sure unborn children are correctly protected from free for all abortion.

Flat out refusing to debate in the matter and flat out saying ALL abortion is to be banned is a terrible stance no matter which side of the argument you are on, it cannot under any common sense circumstances be considered pro-life.

Zubeneschamali

From the time of her admission, up to the morning of the 24th of October - the clinical management plan for the patient centred on the approach to “await events” and to monitor the fetal heart in case an accelerated delivery mig
ht be possible once the fetal heart stopped. Awaiting events is clinically appropriate provided it is not a risk to the mother or the fetus.

Appropriate monitoring and evaluation of the changing clinical presentation with appropriate clinical investigations would likely have lead to reconsideration of the need to expedite delivery. Monitoring and adherence to guidelines for the prompt and effective management of sepsis would likely have helped to prevent rapid deterioration of the patient.

Delaying adequate treatment including expediting delivery in a clinical situation where there is prolonged rupture of the membranes and increasing risk to the mother can, on occasion, be fatal.

Black Menorca

Huntergonzo wrote: »

What's truly low is that you would clearly rather see more deaths like that of Savita than rights to protect these women so you should admit as much. What's your main issue with abortion anyway, do you not believe women should have control over their own bodies?

If Savita has proper due care and attention, shoe would never have died.

I have an aversion to killing unborn babies and do not want Ireland to turn into another abortion ridden country like our neighbours.

Black Menorca

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is no other way to summarise yesterday’s main testimony to the Savita Halappanavar inquest other than that, in the view of an expert witness, restrictive Irish abortion laws cost Ms Halappanavar her life.
Dr Peter Boylan’s statement that Ms Halappanavar would most likely be with us today if she’d been given a termination earlier may be just an opinion, but it is the opinion of one of the most eminent obstetricians in the State.
As the former master and current clinical director of the National Maternity Hospital, with extensive professional experience in the UK and US as well as Ireland, Dr Boylan clearly has vast experience.

Ahhh, now you're quoting Boylan. So you now accept that nowhere in the three reports was an abortion cited as a justified action in the circumstances?

Icepick

am946745 wrote: »

So basically some child should not have rights.. We should change our constition so that there wont be equality for all children? Gay rights fine...baby no.

Embryos, especially if they are not viable, are not children. And women don't want to kill children. Abortion is a very personal and unfortunate decision for those involved, not to mention a serious health concern that affects you mentally and physically.
And show me how forcing women to go abroad is morally superior to providing health care here.

Black Menorca

Icepick wrote: »

Embryos, especially if they are not viable, are not children. And women don't want to kill children. Abortion is a very personal and unfortunate decision for those involved, not to mention a serious health concern that affects you mentally and physically.
And show me how forcing women to go abroad is morally superior to providing health care here.

No one is forced to have an abortion.

However Ireland has decided not to accommodate the killing of unborn babies. If then, the choice is made to go abroad, tragically there is nothing we can do.

But selling out to the abortion industry is not an option and hopefully never will be.

Madd Finn

Gael23 wrote: »

Will we ever see a referendum to repeal this?

Oh hell yeah. Several in fact.

Gael23 wrote: »

Will we ever see a successful referendum to repeal this?

Much more difficult question. Unlike the last no-brainer pair of referenda, anything on this topic is genuinely controversial. Because there good strong arguments on both sides.

[Retreats to safe distance and dons tin hat]

Zubeneschamali

Black Menorca wrote: »

Ahhh, now you're quoting Boylan. So you now accept that nowhere in the three reports was an abortion cited as a justified action in the circumstances?

I'm not sure what report you are reading, I quoted the HSE report, executive summary, below. In case you still don't see it, "expedited delivery" is code for abortion.

Zubeneschamali

Black Menorca wrote: »

If then, the choice is made to go abroad, tragically there is nothing we can do.

If parents were taking 2 year old children to be euthanized abroad, there is a whole tonne of stuff the state could do. In fact, the Attorney General did use the 8th as a basis to stop an abortion abroad one time, you may have heard about it.

But we had a referendum to stop him doing it again, because no-one thinks abortion is murder, and no-one thinks an "unborn" is legally the same as a child.

Black Menorca

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If parents were taking 2 year old children to be euthanized abroad, there is a whole tonne of stuff the state could do. In fact, the Attorney General did use the 8th as a basis to stop an abortion abroad one time, you may have heard about it.

But we had a referendum to stop him doing it again, because no-one thinks abortion is murder, and no-one thinks an "unborn" is legally the same as a child.

Murder is your word.

ec18

nothing that is based on a religious belief should be enshrined in the constitution, Repealing the 8th makes for more scope in legislating for abortion at a legislative level. At the end of the day if some stranger that you don't know wants/needs/chooses to abort who is anyone to question their decision with blind rhetoric

Black Menorca

ec18 wrote: »

nothing that is based on a religious belief should be enshrined in the constitution, Repealing the 8th makes for more scope in legislating for abortion at a legislative level. At the end of the day if some stranger that you don't know wants/needs/chooses to abort who is anyone to question their decision with blind rhetoric

I oppose the deliberate killing of unborn babies and the Irish Statute Book and Constitution agree with me.

Zubeneschamali

Black Menorca wrote: »

Murder is your word.

IF an "unborn" actually has an equal right to life with the mother, the way the mad 8th amendment says, then we would be justified in handcuffing pregnant women to a prison bunk to stop them aborting. One of the Supreme Court justices said as much in his X case judgement, that even if we left the mother a physical and mental wreck, they would both be alive:

It has not been argued that the words "having regard to the equal right of life of the mother" should be construed more widely than preserving the life of the mother and should be construed to be wide enough to include a situation where the best expert opinion is to the effect that the continuance of the pregnancy would be to make the mother a physical wreck. I do not think the word "life" in this context is to be construed any differently from the word "life" in the earlier part of the same Article though the State would be obliged to do all it reasonably possibly can to take steps to prevent anybody becoming a physical or a mental wreck, short of taking innocent life to achieve it. Fortunately the Court does not have to decide this matter now but has to decide the matter in the context of a threat of suicide. Suicide threats can be contained. The duration of the pregnancy is a matter of months and it should not be impossible to guard the girl against self-destruction and preserve the life of the unborn child at the same time. The choice is between the certain death of the unborn life and a feared substantial danger of death but no degree of certainty of the mother by way of self-destruction

But actually, voters don't believe the 8th, were horrified by this interpretation, and voted to allow women to travel, and even to have access to baby-murdering information here in Ireland.

This is completely different to how actual baby-murder is treated.

Icepick

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

So therefore I am ignorant of the word ignorant, in addition to you being ignorant of the point I was making?

As a pro-life christian, anything that prevents even one harmless child from being killed is a positive in my eyes.

As opposed to a harmful child?

keane2097

Black Menorca wrote: »

I oppose the deliberate killing of unborn babies and the Irish Statute Book and Constitution agree with me.

Are you willing to say what you think the punishment should be for it so we can dispense with this slithering around with words that appears to be going on?

Black Menorca

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

IF an "unborn" actually has an equal right to life with the mother, the way the mad 8th amendment says, then we would be justified in handcuffing pregnant women to a prison bunk to stop them aborting. One of the Supreme Court justices said as much in his X case judgement, that even if we left the mother a physical and mental wreck, they would both be alive:

It has not been argued that the words "having regard to the equal right of life of the mother" should be construed more widely than preserving the life of the mother and should be construed to be wide enough to include a situation where the best expert opinion is to the effect that the continuance of the pregnancy would be to make the mother a physical wreck. I do not think the word "life" in this context is to be construed any differently from the word "life" in the earlier part of the same Article though the State would be obliged to do all it reasonably possibly can to take steps to prevent anybody becoming a physical or a mental wreck, short of taking innocent life to achieve it. Fortunately the Court does not have to decide this matter now but has to decide the matter in the context of a threat of suicide. Suicide threats can be contained. The duration of the pregnancy is a matter of months and it should not be impossible to guard the girl against self-destruction and preserve the life of the unborn child at the same time. The choice is between the certain death of the unborn life and a feared substantial danger of death but no degree of certainty of the mother by way of self-destruction

But actually, voters don't believe the 8th, were horrified by this interpretation, and voted to allow women to travel, and even to have access to baby-murdering information here in Ireland.

This is completely different to how actual baby-murder is treated.

The intentional taking of unborn life is a crime in this country. You be in denial of this fact if you wish.

But tell us. If its not a crime, how many babies were intentionally killed in the womb since X was legislated for?

Zubeneschamali

Black Menorca wrote: »

I oppose the deliberate killing of unborn babies and the Irish Statute Book and Constitution agree with me.

Why does the constitution explicitly allow that the right to life of the unborn does not affect a woman's right to travel or obtain abortion information?

In case you are not old enough to remember, we voted that into the constitution to stop the State defending the right to life of the unborn, as long as the abortions happen somewhere else.

keane2097

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why does the constitution explicitly allow that the right to life of the unborn does not affect a woman's right to travel or obtain abortion information?

In case you are not old enough to remember, we voted that into the constitution to stop the State defending the right to life of the unborn, as long as the abortions happen somewhere else.

It's just a word game, you know the craic.

Zubeneschamali

Black Menorca wrote: »

But tell us. If its not a crime, how many babies were intentionally killed in the womb since X was legislated for?

You keep asking this, even though you have already been told that nobody knows. They really don't have to put a notice in the paper.

Black Menorca

keane2097 wrote: »

Are you willing to say what you think the punishment should be for it so we can dispense with this slithering around with words that appears to be going on?

I refer you to the X Legislation, it makes it very clear what the punishment can be maximised to.

Icepick

Glenman wrote: »

Life is precious from conception until natural death.

I hope you don't use antibiotics then.