8th Amendment

mohawk

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

I think abortion as a means of contraception is sickening.

Honestly this type of rhetoric gets to me. Is this really what society thinks of women. We mustn't have abortion in this country because women will just keep getting themselves pregnant and then have an abortion.

Loafing Oaf

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

I can't see FG presiding over an abortion referendum anyway.

Wouldn't be so sure. Enda's right hand James Reilly has come out in favour of it, so perhaps they're choreographing a big announcement from the man himself in the autumn? Having said that, if they found themselves in govt with FF, I'm sure they'd come up with some with some way of long-fingering the issue...

oscarBravo

mohawk wrote: »

Is this really what society thinks of women.

It's certainly what a particular socially-conservative segment of society thinks of women.

It makes for depressing reading, how women have had to fight tooth and nail for every social change over the last century or so. More accurately, how the same form of self-styled morally-superior smugness is always ready to fight tooth and nail against those changes.

The only glimmer of light in the darkness is the knowledge that those who fight against women's rights always end up looking incredibly stupid a very, very short time later.

130Kph

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's certainly what a particular socially-conservative segment of society thinks of women.

It makes for depressing reading, how women have had to fight tooth and nail for every social change over the last century or so. More accurately, how the same form of self-styled morally-superior smugness is always ready to fight tooth and nail against those changes.

The only glimmer of light in the darkness is the knowledge that those who fight against women's rights always end up looking incredibly stupid a very, very short time later.

This is true.

I remember listening to an RTE radio documentary sometime within the last 15 years (can’t remember when exactly) about some Dublin mother who was stridently pro-life all her life – to the extreme i.e. at the pure ideological level. Then one day her teenage daughter came to her crying that she was pregnant.

To cut a long story short, within a day or two they went to Liverpool and the daughter had an abortion. This mother said having the abortion was a no-brainer!!! (due to daughters age, promising college plans, the guy was gone, life plans etc.).

She admitted on this programme that she was foolish to be formerly so extreme in her pro-life views and that in hind-sight once her daughter had the crisis pregnancy she realised that those views were inhumane, theoretical, aspirational, delusional & impractical (for her daughter). So some extremists can and do change their mind on such an issue when faced with a loved-ones reality.

I think such views make certain types of pro-lifers feel good about themselves. In most cases (though not all) that’s the only purpose these attitudes serve.

Hotblack Desiato

Isn't it a shame how so many people have no insight at all into an issue so long as it only affects other people.

How many times did we hear 'when I found out my son or daughter was gay, my views changed' or 'my brother or friend told me he was gay and a Yes vote would mean a lot to him' etc. etc.

Sounds great.

But the flipside of that, is that a hell of a lot of people think it's perfectly OK to treat other people like dirt, provided they're not known to them personally.

Abortion is exactly the same. But it's still hidden behind a veil of secrecy and shame. If the truth could be told, how many people living in Ireland would NOT know a woman who had an abortion?

Gael23

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0525/703536-eight-amendment-constitution/

No Voter And Proud

seamus wrote: »

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.

The morning after pill stops implantation. It's an egg then not a child.
To compare the two as the same is completely incorrect and potentially digressing from the actual issue of abortion. The morning after pill is not an abortifacient.

There is no difference as, once a fertilized egg is implanted from that point it's a potentially viable foetus. That's where I draw the line - in line with my impressions, morality and the wisdom imparted to show God's view for the world.

Zubeneschamali

Gael23 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0525/703536-eight-amendment-constitution/

Just a note: please post a line telling people what your link is about. I am wary of clicking links in abortion threads in case I land on a site packed with gory images from a pathology lab somewhere.

For some reason, no-one ever posts links like that when talking about gall bladder surgery or whatever, but abortion seems to bring them out.

Zubeneschamali

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

It's an egg then not a child.

Hang on, what about the fact that life begins at conception, it's a separate human life with its own unique DNA?

You're saying it's perfectly fine to kill it at that stage, but not after it implants itself? What exactly is the difference inside the cell before and after implantation that makes it into a human life? If we reverse the implantation, does it stop being a human life?

inocybe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Hang on, what about the fact that life begins at conception, it's a separate human life with its own unique DNA?

You're saying it's perfectly fine to kill it at that stage, but not after it implants itself? What exactly is the difference inside the cell before and after implantation that makes it into a human life? If we reverse the implantation, does it stop being a human life?

It has a stalk. Makes all the difference apparently.

inocybe

Btw, the morning after pill is not the answer to women needing abortions. It works mainly by delaying ovulation, if ovulation is already underway there is doubt whether it has any effect at all. People seem to think contraception and the MAP are 100%, which they absolutely are not. You can do everything by the book and still end up accidentally pregnant.

No Voter And Proud

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Hang on, what about the fact that life begins at conception, it's a separate human life with its own unique DNA?

You're saying it's perfectly fine to kill it at that stage, but not after it implants itself? What exactly is the difference inside the cell before and after implantation that makes it into a human life? If we reverse the implantation, does it stop being a human life?

Everyone has to reconcile their views and draw a line somewhere.
In line with the teachings of the Church, and my own viewpoint on where life begins that's where I draw the line for me.

After all, nothing further has to happen in order for a fertilized implanted egg to become a living child in 9 months. A non-implanted egg has to be implanted.

No Voter And Proud

inocybe wrote: »

It has a stalk. Makes all the difference apparently.

So, rather than laugh at my post, why not come back with an argument in favour of killing it?

inocybe wrote: »

Btw, the morning after pill is not the answer to women needing abortions. It works mainly by delaying ovulation, if ovulation is already underway there is doubt whether it has any effect at all. People seem to think contraception and the MAP are 100%, which they absolutely are not. You can do everything by the book and still end up accidentally pregnant.

It works by stopping implantation.

seamus

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

After all, nothing further has to happen in order for a fertilized implanted egg to become a living child in 9 months.

nothing further has to happen

nothing further has to happen

nothing further has to happen

Just no point in arguing with that level of ignorance.

Please go off and do some reading on the basics of human gestation to understand the insanely complex set of things that has to go absolutely right in order for a living child to emerge at the end of nine months.

inocybe

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

So, rather than laugh at my post, why not come back with an argument in favour of killing it?



It works by stopping implantation.

No, that is by no means certain. The main action is to delay ovulation. Read up on it.

Zubeneschamali

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Everyone has to reconcile their views and draw a line somewhere.

And then sling anyone who disagrees about where the line is in jail for 14 years, even if the line you chose makes not one ounce of sense.

No Voter And Proud

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And then sling anyone who disagrees about where the line is in jail for 14 years, even if the line you chose makes not one ounce of sense.

Regardless of if it makes sense to you, that's the current status in our constitution.

Zubeneschamali

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Regardless of if it makes sense to you, that's the current status in our constitution.

Well, no, "unborn" is not defined in the stupid 8th amendment, only in the stupid X case legislation.

And when we repeal the 8th amendment, the reason for the stupid x case legislation is gone, we can pass some sensible legislation based on actual medical opinion.

No Voter And Proud

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no, "unborn" is not defined in the stupid 8th amendment, only in the stupid X case legislation.

And when we repeal the 8th amendment, the reason for the stupid x case legislation is gone, we can pass some sensible legislation based on actual medical opinion.

Stop posting your opinion as fact.
Unborn child is clear as day. Any child yet to be born. Hence my choosing of implantation as my line in the sand.

oscarBravo

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Unborn child is clear as day. Any child yet to be born.

That definition includes children who won't be born for decades. Whoops, not such a clear-cut definition after all, is it?

Glenman

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Childbirth is also quite graphic. Have you ever seen surgery being done with an eye? Thats quite uncomfortable to watch. Will we not allow those? Good luck trying to stop childbirth!

Eye surgery or childbirth usually don't result in the death of a child, abortion does.

No Voter And Proud

oscarBravo wrote: »

That definition includes children who won't be born for decades. Whoops, not such a clear-cut definition after all, is it?

Potential children... how can something not yet growing be classed as an unborn child? Silly.

In all my time reading this board (i read all through trhe time of the referendum) it really seems that there are people trying to muddy the waters a lot.

No Voter And Proud

Glenman wrote: »

Eye surgery or childbirth usually don't result in the death of a child, abortion does.

That's why I support graphic anti-abortion posters.
What does more damage? Showing actual abortions on a photo, or allowing abortions to take place - meaning that the person complaining about seeing the photo may have instead been aborted in the first place!

endacl

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

That's why I support graphic anti-abortion posters.
What does more damage? Showing actual abortions on a photo, or allowing abortions to take place - meaning that the person complaining about seeing the photo may have instead been aborted in the first place!

But pictures of any medical procedure are unpleasant. Google 'toenail removal surgery'. Should people have to put up with ingrown toenails because pictures of the corrective procedure are messy?

Cop on.

Edit: Also. The scenario you describe would necessitate a temporal paradox.

No Voter And Proud

endacl wrote: »

But pictures of any medical procedure are unpleasant. Google 'toenail removal surgery'. Should people have to put up with ingrown toenails because pictures of the corrective procedure are messy?

Cop on.

Edit: Also. The scenario you describe would necessitate a temporal paradox.

You cop on. Removing an ingrown toenail is not killing a child.

Zubeneschamali

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Unborn child is clear as day. Any child yet to be born. Hence my choosing of implantation as my line in the sand.

This is not clear as day, it is a completely arbitrary line, and another opinion as unsubstantiated as mine.

Why is a single cell embryo, floating free, just a cell, and an implanted one is a "child"?

"Because we have to draw a line somewhere" is not a reason, since we can draw a line at 12 weeks or 24, and get an entirely different legal and moral regime.

ectoraige

Glenman wrote: »

This will be like the SSM, everyone has a different opinion, I believe that God gave life and only he should take it away.

Have you anything to back-up your belief though? I'm pretty sure that couple fits refers to have proof of their experience, do you have anything to point to other than a tradition of indoctrination?

No Voter And Proud

ectoraige wrote: »

Have you anything to back-up your belief though? I'm pretty sure that couple fits refers to have proof of their experience, do you have anything to point to other than a tradition of indoctrination?

Probably morality.

endacl

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

You cop on. Removing an ingrown toenail is not killing a child.

Correct. And neither is removing a clump of cells. You appear to have missed my 'medical procedures look messy' point.

Have the conversational concepts left you behind? Let me know. I don't mind typing a bit slower for you.

No Voter And Proud

endacl wrote: »

Correct. And neither is removing a clump of cells. You appear to have missed my 'medical procedures look messy' point.

Have the conversational concepts left you behind? Let me know. I don't mind typing a bit slower for you.

Removing a baby that's 12 weeks for instance, is a different kind of messy.
It has a heartbeat at that age.

Typing slowly for me? Sorry i don't understand how having to wait a long time for a reply will in any way get across your intended slur on my mental state.

FreudianSlippers

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Removing a baby that's 12 weeks for instance, is a different kind of messy.
It has a heartbeat at that age.

Typing slowly for me? Sorry i don't understand how having to wait a long time for a reply will in any way get across your intended slur on my mental state.

Medical consensus is that prior to 10 weeks the "baby" is not a foetus.

Huntergonzo

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Removing a baby that's 12 weeks for instance, is a different kind of messy.
It has a heartbeat at that age.

What's your major concern for the unborn anyway, what about all the people who are already born that are living in poverty and those who are being abused etc, should they not be of far greater concern than a fetus which is totally dependant on it's mother?

People who claim to be so worried about the unborn children would be far better off focusing their time on caring for those who are already born and need help, unless of course they don't really give a **** about babies once they exit the uterus.

No Voter And Proud

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Medical consensus is that prior to 10 weeks the "baby" is not a foetus.

I referred to 12 weeks.
Heartbeat begins before 12 weeks. Not sure what 10 weeks has to do with anything.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

What's your major concern for the unborn anyway, what about all the people who are already born that are living in poverty and those who are being abused etc, should they not be of far greater concern than a fetus which is totally dependant on it's mother?

People who claim to be so worried about the unborn children would be far better off focusing their time on caring for those who are already born and need help, unless of course they don't really give a **** about babies once they exit the uterus.

If you review my previous posts to the board you will see my concern is for both the unborn and the born.

Huntergonzo

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

I referred to 12 weeks.
Heartbeat begins before 12 weeks. Not sure what 10 weeks has to do with anything.



If you review my previous posts to the board you will see my concern is for both the unborn and the born.

I presume then you work tirelessly for children's charities and adopt as many unwanted children as you can yes? Not being smart those would be genuinely positive things for self proclaimed pro lifers to do.

No Voter And Proud

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I presume then you work tirelessly for children's charities and adopt as many unwanted children as you can yes? Not being smart those would be genuinely positive things for self proclaimed pro lifers to do.

How would me adopting children help anything?
Sure the farm and my part time job take up most of the day, and in the evening I just like a cup of tea before bed.

I don't see the relevance of your point to a debate on whether killing viable babies is morally wrong.

Huntergonzo

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

How would me adopting children help anything?
Sure the farm and my part time job take up most of the day, and in the evening I just like a cup of tea before bed.

I don't see the relevance of your point to a debate on whether killing viable babies is morally wrong.

Merely making the point that anti choice people who claim the moral high ground really don't give a toss about children, they just don't want women having control over their own bodies and they're generally against abortion on shaky religious grounds.

My sister accidently killed her unborn baby, she miscarried so technically by your logic she committed manslaughter, so should it be against the law to miscarry? 'pro-lifers' have to believe that to remain consistent.

No Voter And Proud

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Merely making the point that antI choice people who claim the moral high ground really don't give a toss about children, they just don't want wen having control over their own bodies and they're generally against abortion on shaky religious grounds.

My sister accidently killed her baby, she miscarried so technically by your logic she committed manslaughter, so should it be against the law to miscarry? 'pro-lifers' have to believe that to remain consistent.

A miscarriage is an act of God, how can that be perpetuated by a human?

endacl

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

How would me adopting children help anything?
Sure the farm and my part time job take up most of the day, and in the evening I just like a cup of tea before bed.

I don't see the relevance of your point to a debate on whether killing viable babies is morally wrong.

The fact is, it's us you have to convince if it comes to a vote.

I'm in favour of women being able to avail of the service they currently have to travel to the UK for. Simple as that. I've considered the question. All aspects. I have had experience of women close to me finding themselves in a position whereby the decision they took was the best decision for them. I understand the biology. I've grappled with the ethics.

Convince me.

You needn't bother with faith based arguments. I'm immune.

Huntergonzo

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

A miscarriage is an act of God, how can that be perpetuated by a human?

Then we have a child murdering God so, hardly someone you want to get your morals from!

No Voter And Proud

endacl wrote: »

The fact is, it's us you have to convince if it comes to a vote.

I'm in favour of women being able to avail of the service they currently have to travel to the UK for. Simple as that. I've considered the question. All aspects. I have had experience of women close to me finding themselves in a position whereby the decision they took was the best decision for them. I understand the biology. I've grappled with the ethics.

Convince me.

You needn't bother with faith based arguments. I'm immune.

If I have to convince you why killing a child is wrong then its you that has many questions to answer.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Then we have a child murdering God so, hardly someone you want to get your morals from!

Who are we to question the will of God?

Glenman

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Merely making the point that antI choice people who claim the moral high ground really don't give a toss about children, they just don't want wen having control over their own bodies and they're generally against abortion on shaky religious grounds.

My sister accidently killed her unborn baby, she miscarried so technically by your logic she committed manslaughter, so should it be against the law to miscarry? 'pro-lifers' have to believe that to remain consistent.

That's silly, miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies can't be helped.
Abortion is the deliberate killing of a child. Although I don't blame the mothers, they are in a vulnerable state. I blame the doctors and medical people who promote it instead of offering other support services and alternatives to mothers.

Huntergonzo

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

If I have to convince you why killing a child is wrong then its you that has many questions to answer.



Who are we to question the will of God?

I know you're only taking the piss, but this is good practice for when I do meet a genuine God nut, keep up the good work bro :-)

endacl

Glenman wrote: »

That's silly, miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies can't be helped.
Abortion is the deliberate killing of a child. Although I don't blame the mothers, they are in a vulnerable state. I blame the doctors and medical people who promote it instead of offering other support services and alternatives to mothers.

The women I know chose it. Nobody 'promoted' it. Alternatives were considered.

How low is your regard for women? They can't make their own decisions?

No Voter And Proud

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I know you're only taking the piss, but this is good practice for when I do meet a genuine God nut, keep up the good work bro :-)

Ok "bro"...
Off to england then I take it?

No Voter And Proud

Glenman wrote: »

That's silly, miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies can't be helped.
Abortion is the deliberate killing of a child. Although I don't blame the mothers, they are in a vulnerable state. I blame the doctors and medical people who promote it instead of offering other support services and alternatives to mothers.

Finally, someone talking sense! I feel like I'm being attacked on this forum and I'm not here a wet week!

Huntergonzo

Glenman wrote: »

That's silly, miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies can't be helped.
Abortion is the deliberate killing of a child. Although I don't blame the mothers, they are in a vulnerable state. I blame the doctors and medical people who promote it instead of offering other support services and alternatives to mothers.

It's not silly, it just clearly highlights the hypocrisy of the anti abortion brigade and abortion is not killing children (which I think most of us are against to be fair, can't speak for everybody though), it's removing a fetus, that's indisputable.

Anyway I must ask do you give a single sh1t about born children who are in need of help or is it just the unborn that you're so darn worried about and is your concern religion based?

endacl

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Ok "bro"...
Off to england then I take it?

Apropos of.....?

endacl

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Finally, someone talking sense! I feel like I'm being attacked on this forum and I'm not here a wet week!

You're being responded to. Not our fault you post nonsense.

Huntergonzo

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Ok "bro"...
Off to england then I take it?

Wouldn't they say bruv more than bro?

endacl

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Wouldn't they say bruv more than bro?

Depends. Regionality, an' all dat, bruv.