Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

8th Amendment

1…457910…39

Comments

  • #302
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Medical consensus is that prior to 10 weeks the "baby" is not a foetus.

    A guide for those in doubt: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm


  • #303
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


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

    You said that if you dont like the look of abortions then you shouldnt want them allowed
    Glenman wrote: »
    Yes, Youth Defense for example do use very graphic images on some of their posters but these are just images from abortion procedures so if people don't like them then they shouldn't be pushing for abortion legislation.

    It has been highlighted that things are allowed no problem also arent something most people would want to watch. Now you are just moving goalposts.


  • #304
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    endacl wrote: »
    Depends. Regionality, an' all dat, bruv.

    A feck it, I think I'll just stick with horse, it's more local.


  • #305
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Who are we to question the will of God?

    I encourage you to write this on posters, along with Vote No!, and plaster the country with them before the referendum.

    It'll really help with the Yes vote, thanks.


  • #306
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    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.

    Because say what you want, an embryo is not a human nor is it viable outside the womb. Therefore, forget 12 weeks, let's have abortions available before 10 weeks, agreed?


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Because say what you want, an embryo is not a human nor is it viable outside the womb. Therefore, forget 12 weeks, let's have abortions available before 10 weeks, agreed?

    Why stop at weeks? Why not years?
    Abortions on anything under 10 years.

    Got an unruly child, why not remove it legally with an abortion?


  • #308
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Why stop at weeks? Why not years?
    Abortions on anything under 10 years.

    Got an unruly child, why not remove it legally with an abortion?

    Great idea but how would that be phrased for the constitution?


  • #309
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    traprunner wrote: »
    Great idea but how would that be phrased for the constitution?

    Well that's assuming we have repealed the 8th and replaced it with lets murder all our children if we want


  • #310
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Why stop at weeks? Why not years?
    Abortions on anything under 10 years.

    Got an unruly child, why not remove it legally with an abortion?
    It should be lawful to terminate an embryo for any reason.
    It should be (and is) lawful to terminate a human for specific reasons.

    It's not a difficult thing to comprehend. Can you give the lawful reason why a 10 year old child should be terminated? I can give you a lawful reason why a foetus should be terminated.


  • #311
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Why stop at weeks? Why not years?
    Abortions on anything under 10 years.

    Got an unruly child, why not remove it legally with an abortion?

    And this is why it is near impossible for there to be a discussion on abortion that wont turn to ****. People who think the purpose of an abortion is because a woman want to kill a child, a woman could never not want to be pregnant. Until people can tell the difference between an unwanted pregnancy and unwanted child nothing can be done.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    It should be lawful to terminate an embryo for any reason.
    It should be (and is) lawful to terminate a human for specific reasons.

    It's not a difficult thing to comprehend. Can you give the lawful reason why a 10 year old child should be terminated? I can give you a lawful reason why a foetus should be terminated.

    Neither should be terminated, morally. Any society which allows it should have it's notional head examined.


  • #313
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    Not a NSA agent wrote: »
    And this is why it is near impossible for there to be a discussion on abortion that wont turn to ****. People who think the purpose of an abortion is because a woman want to kill a child, a woman could never not want to be pregnant. Until people can tell the difference between an unwanted pregnancy and unwanted child nothing can be done.

    An unwanted pregnancy is also an unwanted child.


  • #314
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    An unwanted pregnancy is also an unwanted child.

    So you disagree with the expert medical profession who do not call it a child?

    Zygote, blastocyst, embryo or foetus are the correct words to use.


  • #315
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    traprunner wrote: »
    So you disagree with the expert medical profession who do not call it a child?

    Well an unwanted pregnancy involves what exactly?
    At what point does it become magically wanted then.


  • #316
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Well an unwanted pregnancy involves what exactly?
    At what point does it become magically wanted then.

    It involved a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or foetus.


  • #317
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    An unwanted pregnancy is also an unwanted child.

    If a woman doesnt want to have a child then she can go for adoption, but that still requires 9 months of pregnancy and the effects it has. If a woman doesnt want to be pregnant then waiting until after the pregnancy isn't much good.


  • #318
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Not a NSA agent wrote: »
    People who think the purpose of an abortion is because a woman want to kill a child, a woman could never not want to be pregnant. Until people can tell the difference between an unwanted pregnancy and unwanted child nothing can be done.

    The No side do NOT believe embryos are children, or they would be pressing for abortion to be tried as murder. They'd be having funerals after miscarriages. Women returning from the UK after murdering their children would be arrested.

    We certainly shouldn't have freedom of information or travel, but they all pretend pro-lifers support those things. They didn't at the time, but none of them have tried to get those provisions removed since.

    It is not a simple case where they think embryo=baby, even if they talk that way for effect sometimes.


  • #319
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    Not a NSA agent wrote: »
    If a woman doesnt want to have a child then she can go for adoption, but that still requires 9 months of pregnancy and the effects it has. If a woman doesnt want to be pregnant then waiting until after the pregnancy isn't much good.

    So a finite period of discomfort followed by a life being given a chance at adoption, or a surgery to kill the life and a lifetime of the mother feeling guilty.
    Plus the effects on the mother's soul. It can't feel good to have a death on your conscience. How you explain that to your higher power?


  • #320
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    The No side do NOT believe embryos are children, or they would be pressing for abortion to be tried as murder. They'd be having funerals after miscarriages. Women returning from the UK after murdering their children would be arrested.

    We certainly shouldn't have freedom of information or travel, but they all pretend pro-lifers support those things. They didn't at the time, but none of them have tried to get those provisions removed since.

    It is not a simple case where they think embryo=baby, even if they talk that way for effect sometimes.
    There's the word "potential child" ....


  • #321
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Any society which allows it should have it's notional head examined.

    We allow it. That's what the 12th, 13th and 14th amendments were for, to make sure Irish women had access to abortion, and the State would not protect their unborn children, all around the 60%-40% level in the referendums.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    It never takes long:
    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    An unwanted pregnancy is also an unwanted child.

    "Women should shut up and passively accept their duty as incubators."
    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    So a finite period of discomfort followed by a life being given a chance at adoption, or a surgery to kill the life and a lifetime of the mother feeling guilty.
    Plus the effects on the mother's soul. It can't feel good to have a death on your conscience. How you explain that to the Divinity?

    "My religious views should form the basis of laws governing women's rights."

    You don't have to scratch too deeply.


  • #323
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    There's the word "potential child" ....

    I find it strange that people supporting pro-life fail to acknowledge the real words for what it is: Zygote, blastocyst, embryo or foetus.


  • #324
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    We allow it. That's what the 12th, 13th and 14th amendments were for, to make sure Irish women had access to abortion, and the State would not protect their unborn children, all around the 60%-40% level in the referendums.

    We permit people to travel to other less christian countries to avail of legal killing.
    If I had my way this wouldn't be the case.


  • #325
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    traprunner wrote: »
    I find it strange that people supporting pro-life fail to acknowledge the real words for what it is: Zygote, blastocyst, embryo or foetus.

    People dont relate to those words like they do "baby" "child" etc.


  • #326
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    So a finite period of discomfort followed by a life being given a chance at adoption, or a surgery to kill the life and a lifetime of the mother feeling guilty.
    Plus the effects on the mother's soul. It can't feel good to have a death on your conscience. How you explain that to the Divinity?

    A finite period of discomfort? Another thing the pro life side seems to be ignorant about is pregnancy.

    The rest is just religious nonsense.


  • #327
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    If I had my way this wouldn't be the case.

    Yes, we guessed, but even back in the dark days of 1992, the people voted 60-40 to keep things that way.


  • #328
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    People dont relate to those words like they do "baby" "child" etc.

    I relate to them because they are the proper words to use. Baby and child are emotional words used nearly as a form of blackmail. They are incorrect.


  • #329
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    Not a NSA agent wrote: »
    A finite period of discomfort? Another thing the pro life side seems to be ignorant about is pregnancy.

    The rest is just religious nonsense.

    I edited the post to remove that reference after I posted it.
    What's ignorant about my post though? Surely a pregnancy followed by giving a child up for adoption is better on a person's soul/health/mental state than knowing there was a life (or foetus, whatever word you want) growing inside them that she created and then ended.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Yes, we guessed, but even back in the dark days of 1992, the people voted 60-40 to keep things that way.

    I know. Democracy sometimes doesn't work but hey them's the rules. Best have it in another country which will reduce the numbers of Irish that can avail of the abortions. I recall a statistic that it was 1:4 ratio between Irish and UK people haviung abortions.
    traprunner wrote: »
    I relate to them because they are the proper words to use. Baby and child are emotional words used nearly as a form of blackmail. They are incorrect.
    They are correct. It's the same as the anti-life side using the scientific words for the opposite reason. To remove peoples emotional connection to their potential unborn offspring.


  • #330
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    I know. Democracy sometimes doesn't work but hey them's the rules. Best have it in another country which will reduce the numbers of Irish that can avail of the abortions. I recall a statistic that it was 1:4 ratio between Irish and UK people haviung abortions.

    I recall a statistic that 100% of people who wanted an abortion went abroad and got it.

    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    They are correct. It's the same as the anti-life side using the scientific words for the opposite reason. To remove peoples emotional connection to their potential unborn offspring.

    Nope, not correct. The words I provided are 100% accurate and reflect the situation. That is why it changes depending on the number of weeks that pass by. A bit like a newborn baby, becomes a baby, toddler, child, teen, adult.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,354 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Neither should be terminated, morally. Any society which allows it should have it's notional head examined.

    Michael D?!?


  • #332
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    We permit people to travel to other less christian countries to avail of legal killing.
    If I had my way this wouldn't be the case.
    Can we vote to make this a secular country whilst we're at it?


  • #333
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,354 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    I edited the post to remove that reference after I posted it.
    What's ignorant about my post though? Surely a pregnancy followed by giving a child up for adoption is better on a person's soul/health/mental state than knowing there was a life (or foetus, whatever word you want) growing inside them that she created and then ended.



    I know. Democracy sometimes doesn't work but hey them's the rules. Best have it in another country which will reduce the numbers of Irish that can avail of the abortions. I recall a statistic that it was 1:4 ratio between Irish and UK people haviung abortions.


    They are correct. It's the same as the anti-life side using the scientific words for the opposite reason. To remove peoples emotional connection to their potential unborn offspring.
    Anti-life?

    There we go!


  • #334
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,354 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Can we vote to make this a non-Christian country whilst we're at it?

    Sure we do that each and every Sunday.


  • #335
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Why stop at weeks? Why not years?
    Abortions on anything under 10 years.

    Got an unruly child, why not remove it legally with an abortion?
    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Well that's assuming we have repealed the 8th and replaced it with lets murder all our children if we want
    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Neither should be terminated, morally. Any society which allows it should have it's notional head examined.

    Mod:

    As per the previous mod warning the above type of stuff doesn't help the thread and doesn't do much for your arguement either! Tone it down please or you'll end up banned from the thread. Thanks.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #336
    Glenman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 976 ✭✭✭Glenman


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    It should be lawful to terminate an embryo for any reason.
    It should be (and is) lawful to terminate a human for specific reasons.

    It's not a difficult thing to comprehend. Can you give the lawful reason why a 10 year old child should be terminated? I can give you a lawful reason why a foetus should be terminated.

    Calling an unborn baby a "foetus" seems to be a way of dehumanising the unborn and justifying abortion. When do you believe a "foetus" becomes a baby, it it once he or she is born?


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Glenman wrote: »
    Calling an unborn baby a "foetus" seems to be a way of dehumanising the unborn and justifying abortion. When do you believe a "foetus" becomes a baby, it it once he or she is born?
    A foetus is simply an unborn baby. Regardless of religious belief, there are scientific truths/definitions at play here.


  • #338
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    Glenman wrote: »
    Calling an unborn baby a "foetus" seems to be a way of dehumanising the unborn and justifying abortion. When do you believe a "foetus" becomes a baby, it it once he or she is born?

    In the words of George Carlin = "Well, if a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come when there's a miscarriage they don't have a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say "we have two children and one on the way" instead of saying "we have three children?" People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and it's a continuous process."


  • #339
    kerry4sam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,127 ✭✭✭✭kerry4sam


    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    Correct, if she got due care = the abortion she needed then she probably would be alive today.
    ...
    ec18 wrote: »
    Didn't the inquiry conclude that based on medical evidence available an abortion would have saved her?

    Yes.
    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Got a link to that?

    The link is right here from 2013
    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.
    .

    According to our Taoiseach, the referendum on Abortion will be for after the next GE, see here.

    So no issues with a Referendum for Same Sex Marriage where they knew the YES campaign would win out ; but the 8th Amendment where they know they would have a battle on their hands, gets brushed off for the next to take power.

    Hope the Labour Party push this before the next GE ; or maybe they will use this contentious issue to help their own campaign.
    Will he next GE-campaign will be tied up into the views of our candidates on the 8th Amendment I wonder?

    Thanks,
    kerry4sam


  • #340
    Icepick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    kerry4sam wrote: »
    Hope the Labour Party push this before the next GE
    The risk here is we could lose because of the idiots known as protest voters.


  • #341
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,354 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Icepick wrote: »
    The risk here is we could lose because of the idiots known as protest voters.

    People tend to have their heads screwed on when it comes to votes of conscience. Take the recent referendum for example. No evidence whatsoever of a protest vote.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    Glenman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 976 ✭✭✭Glenman


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfh3f7q5Gg4


  • #343
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Glenman wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfh3f7q5Gg4

    Fantasist nonsense.

    You could replace that with a video showing a world without Hitler, Stalin, George Bush, Thatcher, to name but a few.


  • #344
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    Glenman wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfh3f7q5Gg4

    In fairness that's one of the stupidest videos I've ever seen, it shows us a reel of hypothetical people who done nice/great things. Of course it doesn't take into consideration that these things will almost certainly be done in the future anyway with or without abortion.

    Also where's the balance? It shows you hypothetical Leukemia researchers, All-Ireland winners, 1st female Taoiseach, ok there's a very small chance that abortion is temporarily denying us these people but it also could be denying us wife beaters, rapists, murders, pedophiles etc etc so why doesn't the video show any of those people I wonder because sadly they're even more likely to be born than a 1st Female Taoiseach.


  • #345
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    It would be quite ironic to have a woman as a Taoiseach, considering our constitution practically states a woman's place is in the home.


  • #346
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Glenman wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfh3f7q5Gg4
    Equally, let's insert babies with anencephaly, severe mental retardation, etc.


  • #347
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    It would be quite ironic to have a woman as a Taoiseach, considering our constitution practically states a woman's place is in the home.
    It doesn't really though.


  • #348
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    It would be quite ironic to have a woman as a Taoiseach, considering our constitution practically states a woman's place is in the home.

    That's what you get when an Archbishop basically writes your constitution.


  • #349
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    It doesn't really though.

    Article 41.2?
    - the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to
    the State

    - mothers shall not be obliged by
    economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.


  • #350
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Article 41.2?
    - the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to
    the State

    - mothers shall not be obliged by
    economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    That does not say that she can't have a life outside of the home.


  • #351
    Glenman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 976 ✭✭✭Glenman


    This thread is quite pointless really. Those of us contributing to it are quite stuck in our views and no matter what people on the "other side of the debate" say our views will not be changed!


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement