Second coming of the Pope to coincide with General Election issue of 8th amendment?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Kev W

ucseae1 wrote: »

What is wrong with the Eight amendment??

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

It respect the rights of everyone.

You can't possibly expect the people you're addressing to look at that and think "oh yeah, fair point, I hadn't looked at it that way".

You're bordering on trolling now.

ucseae1

Kev W wrote: »

You can't possibly expect the people you're addressing to look at that and think "oh yeah, fair point, I hadn't looked at it that way".

You're bordering on trolling now.

I turn exactly the same point back at you. You can't expect people to say that its fine to kill at child because of a myriad of reasons. We reduce the child to hundreds of subjective views and laws.

Its no small matter, we are talking about a life here.

Take Gianna Jessen born during a failed saline abortion attempt. She has a voice today. How many more children are we turning into medical waste??

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ucseae1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

When do they become children?

Kev W

ucseae1 wrote: »

When do they become children?

Are we back on this merry-go-round again?

ucseae1

Kev W wrote: »

Are we back on this merry-go-round again?

You want to debate something as sensitive as a human life but you can't tell me when that life starts?

stinkle

They become children when born. You don't get childrens' allowance when pregnant for example, nor would you get a death cert for a miscarriage. They aren't a legal person until birth, which is why having a constitution which gives a foetus the same right to life to a grown woman is ridiculous.

ucseae1

stinkle wrote: »

They become children when born.

So on day 280 they are a child, but on day 279 they are not and have no rights?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ucseae1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually and thankfully a child at 279 days H A S rights!!!! That is the law.

lazygal

ucseae1 wrote: »

Actually and thankfully a child at 279 days H A S rights!!!! That is the law.

Unless it's brought abroad to be killed!!!! That's the law. Is that ok, to bring children elsewhere to be killed?

The Randy Riverbeast

ucseae1 wrote: »

So on day 280 they are a child, but on day 279 they are not and have no rights?

Why is it a person isnt an adult one day and then the next is? What difference does 1 day make in being allowed to drink or vote?

Why does it suddenly becomes a person at implantation? One hour it has no rights, the next it has the equal right to life as the mother.

ucseae1

lazygal wrote: »

Unless it's brought abroad to be killed!!!! That's the law. Is that ok, to bring children elsewhere to be killed?

The right to travel is to travel... You can't stop travel, you can't stand up on this jurisdiction for what is right. Its like saying we should have Pot and brothels here swell because people travel to Amsterdam.

stinkle

If born on day 280 yes. A child is post-birth, not yet fully grown person. If people want to describe a growing foetus as a child then they can, but that's just projecting their own positive expectation of the pregnancy.

The Randy Riverbeast

ucseae1 wrote: »

The right to travel is to travel... You can't stop travel, you can't stand up on this jurisdiction for what is right. Its like saying we should have Pot and brothels here swell because people travel to Amsterdam.

People have been prevented from traveling for the likes of euthanasia. The travel part had to be added at a later date as you could prevent someone from traveling if the purpose was for having an abortion just as you could prevent someone from traveling if it is believed they will kill their child.

Cabaal

ucseae1 wrote: »

The right to travel is to travel... You can't stop travel, you can't stand up on this jurisdiction for what is right. Its like saying we should have Pot and brothels here swell because people travel to Amsterdam.

We're not talking about drugs and sex, we're talking about "lives".

If you see abortion as killing or murder and a fetus is equal to a grown adult or teenager then it's rather messed you you are then ok with travel to kill the fetus.

It's also messed up that you see drug usage in a foreign country as equal to an abortion. Utter nonsense

ucseae1

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

People have been prevented from traveling for the likes of euthanasia.

Nope, people traveling with people have been prevented. You can buy a ticket and go to Switzerland any day. What you do in switzerland is your business.

ucseae1

Cabaal wrote: »

We're not talking about drugs and sex, we're talking about "lives".

If you see abortion as killing or murder and a fetus is equal to a grown adult or teenager then it's rather messed you you are then ok with travel to kill the fetus.

It's also messed up that you see drug usage in a foreign country as equal to an abortion. Utter nonsense

I didn't say I was ok with travel to kill a child.. Did I? People have the right to travel. Full Stop.

We have the right to legislated our own laws in our own country.

The Randy Riverbeast

ucseae1 wrote: »

Nope, people traveling with people have been prevented. You can buy a ticket and go to Switzerland any day. What you do in switzerland is your business.

So you can be prevented from traveling with a person for euthanasia, but you cant be prevented from traveling with a "person" for an abortion. Both resulting in the death of a person to certain people's views.

volchitsa

ucseae1 wrote: »

I didn't say I was ok with travel to kill a child.. Did I? People have the right to travel. Full Stop.

We have the right to legislated our own laws in our own country.

Should someone who admits openly to having traveled abroad to terminate a pregnancy (Roisin Ingles, Deirdre Conroy, Tara Flynn come to mind) be prosecuted after the fact? You know like if you went around saying you'd killed your granny, kind of thing.

14 years for each of those three would surely make at least one out of the next planeload of women think twice before doing the same thing.

Hotblack Desiato

ucseae1 wrote: »

We have the right to legislated our own laws in our own country.

Let's have a referendum to decide what the scope of the laws can be.

Absolam

ucseae1 wrote: »

So on day 280 they are a child, but on day 279 they are not and have no rights?

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No Fred, it's not. From the moment of implantation they have the right to life; that is the law.

lazygal wrote: »

Unless it's brought abroad to be killed!!!! That's the law. Is that ok, to bring children elsewhere to be killed?

Point of order; it still has a right to life in Ireland, regardless of whether it is brought abroad to be killed; that's the law.
It doesn't have a right to life in most jurisdictions where it might be killed; also the law.

Whilst I can't speak for everyone who agrees the unborn should have a right to life in the jurisdiction in which we have a say, I can give my own opinion on your question.
It's not ok to bring children elsewhere to be killed, but it is not practicable to assert extraterritiorial jurisdiction over what would be a crime in this jurisdiction but not in the jurisdiction in which it occurs. You yourself have failed to argue convincingly that it could be practicable, but yet you seem to think pro-life posters should still support it. In fact, the only posters who ever put forward the idea are those who are pro-choice, which probably gives a good indication of just how impracticable everyone knows it is.