The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Beethoven9th

Unfortunately its the unborn who have absolutely no voice in this debate, or ever will

Sweetemotion

eviltwin wrote: »

What is your point?

If a pro-lifer called the pro-choice brigade a bunch of kuntz. Do you think they would still be able to post in this thread?

eviltwin

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If a pro-lifer called the pro-choice brigade a bunch of kuntz. Do you think they would still be able to post in this thread let alone this site?

No they wouldn't just as my comment wasn't allowed to stay. I think the mods here are quite consistent and fair. I don't know if this thread is specifically what Anne is referring to or the debate in general.

Captain Obvious

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Well when people are going around making unfounded, ignorant and highly offensive comments with no basis on reality it’s bound to get people’s backs up.

Like that everyone who disagrees is a "bunch of kuntz"?

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Just within the last day I’ve seen abortion compared to FGM, the holocaust, and most recently, prostitution.
There is no defense for making those comparisons.
Can you imagine how distressing and angering it may be to read such claims, especially considering many posters here may have had or know someone who has had an abortion themselves?

I wonder how distressing it is to people who have had miscarriages to hear their loss dismissed as "just a bunch of cells". I've seen the pro life side being dismissed as controlling misogynists. Let's not pretend this is good vs evil here. There are people on each side of the debate that who can't debate the issue without getting personal.

NuMarvel

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Just because women are having abortions, it does not mean that abortion is ok. Pro-choicers seem to confuse the idea that if something is already happening, then that thing is a good and ok thing.

We have people not paying their TV licence. Does that mean we should stop stigmatizing people who dont pay their TV licence and do away with the TV licence and shut RTE down? Men are getting on a plane every weekend and travelling to Amsterdam to have sex with 3 or more prostitutes. Does that mean we should stop stigmatizing men who travel to another country to have sex with a prostitute and introduce brothels in every town and village across Ireland?

As I said before, it isn't just a case of people having abortions anyway, it's a case of no one; pro life, pro choice, repeal, or anti-repeal, wanting to stop them.

There is political will and public support for the prosecution of people who don't pay their TV licence, or break speed limits, or buy drugs. The same cannot be said about women who have abortions. Many anti-repealers go to lengths to say they don't want to see women criminalised, even though that's exactly what the status quo permits.

And when it comes to traveling abroad, abortion is the only act that's illegal in Ireland which for there is express constitutional protection to travel abroad to carry out. We voted that in just over 25 years ago, and no one wants to see it overturned.

So if we've already voted to say it's okay to have abortions elsewhere, and no one has any interest in enforcing the law here, retaining the law serves no practical purpose and it should be done away with.

January

Beethoven9th wrote: »

Unfortunately its the unborn who have absolutely no voice in this debate, or ever will

Because they shouldn't have. Why should something that hasn't even taken a breath have more rights than me or the children I have already given birth to?

SusieBlue

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Like that everyone who disagrees is a "bunch of kuntz"?



I wonder how distressing it is to people who have had miscarriages to hear their loss dismissed as "just a bunch of cells". I've seen the pro life side being dismissed as controlling misogynists. Let's not pretend this is good vs evil here. There are people on each side of the debate that who can't debate the issue without getting personal.

Sorry but you can’t equate someone saying a fetus is a bunch of cells (which it is) to someone referring to abortion in the same breath as FGM and the Holocaust.

Captain Obvious

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sorry but you can’t equate someone saying a fetus is a bunch of cells (which it is) to someone referring to abortion in the same breath as FGM and the Holocaust.

I didn't. I was comparing the distress experienced y people affected by both issues.

Sweetemotion

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sorry but you can’t equate someone saying a fetus is a bunch of cells (which it is) to someone referring to abortion in the same breath as FGM and the Holocaust.

We are all a bunch of cells. Can I ask how that "someone" referred to abortion in the same breath as FGM and the Holocaust?

Crea

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Like that everyone who disagrees is a "bunch of kuntz"?



I wonder how distressing it is to people who have had miscarriages to hear their loss dismissed as "just a bunch of cells". I've seen the pro life side being dismissed as controlling misogynists. Let's not pretend this is good vs evil here. There are people on each side of the debate that who can't debate the issue without getting personal.

It's probably less distressing than a person who had a termination for ffa to have pro lifers describe those who have had abortions as "baby murderers".and the usual line trotted out "nothing justifies murdering a baby"

Captain Obvious

Crea wrote: »

It's probably less distressing than a person who had a termination for ffa to have pro lifers describe those who have had abortions as "baby murderers".and the usual line trotted out "nothing justifies murdering a baby"

I'd imagine so. I think you missed the point of my post though. I'm not trying to start a pissing contest, I'm pointing out that those kind of comments are coming from both sides and neither are contributing to the debate by doing so.

SusieBlue

Sweetemotion wrote: »

We are all a bunch of cells. Can I ask how that "someone" referred to abortion in the same breath as FGM and the Holocaust?

Certainly. Here is where FGM and the holocaust were mentioned.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

And used to heat hospitals.

Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals
(Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/aborted-babies-incinerated-to-heat-uk-hospitals/ )

Sound familiar? The nazis used the corpses of jews they had gassed to heat the houses in the concentration camps.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

We're talking about dumping a readily identifiable baby into raw sewerage???

Can you not understand how countries who practice FGM for example look at us here in the west and think we are as gone in the head as we like to think they are?

Andrew Beef

amdublin wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

With the greatest respect, no they don’t.

If women want to end the lives of their unborn children, they should be compelled to travel overseas.

I am at a loss. Do you care about the unborn children or not?


This seems like you care to a point, but once it is a fait accompli once it happens overseas then fair game


(At least it's difficult for the woman/kind of like she has been punished for daring to have an abortion??)

I absolutely care about the unborn child; if it were up to me, I would criminalise women who travel overseas for abortions.

BabysCoffee

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I absolutely care about the unborn child; if it were up to me, I would criminalise women who travel overseas for abortions.

Why?

Bannasidhe

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I absolutely care about the unborn child; if it were up to me, I would criminalise women who travel overseas for abortions.

One presumes that you put a great deal of energy into ensuring that children who are already born are not the victims of homelessness, poverty, lack of health care, lack of support services etc.
Also that you support affordable childcare, fully paid maternity leave, child benefit back dated to the date of conception...

Or is it, like so many pro-lifers here, all about the 'unborn' and then a total lack of interest one they are born and their mother needs support?

Andrew Beef

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I absolutely care about the unborn child; if it were up to me, I would criminalise women who travel overseas for abortions.

Why?

Because I believe that abortion is murder.

The unborn child has a right to life which trumps the woman’s right to choose.

pitifulgod

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Because I believe that abortion is murder.

The unborn child has a right to life which trumps the woman’s right to choose.

Would you wish the women who have abortions to be convicted for murder?

BabysCoffee

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The unborn child has a right to life which trumps the woman’s right to choose.

This makes me sad.

By denying choice to woman they may be destined to die. I can't justify this.

swampgas

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Because I believe that abortion is murder.

The unborn child has a right to life which trumps the woman’s right to choose.

Not everyone accepts this as true. Can you explain why we should change our minds to believe the same thing you do? I mean go ahead and try to persuade me why you think your view is correct.

Simply repeating "That's what I believe" doesn't convince anyone of anything.

Andrew Beef

pitifulgod wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Because I believe that abortion is murder.

The unborn child has a right to life which trumps the woman’s right to choose.

Would you wish the women who have abortions to be convicted for murder?

No, but an offence of “uteral infanticide” or something like that.

It is morally wrong.

swampgas

Andrew Beef wrote: »

No, but an offence of “uteral infanticide” or something like that.

It is morally wrong.

According to whose moral code?

SusieBlue

Andrew Beef wrote: »

No, but an offence of “uteral infanticide” or something like that.

It is morally wrong.

I suppose it’s just unfortunate collateral damage that numerous women live in distress and fear, suffer health complications and even die just because your view is forced on the whole of society.

I think it’s morally wrong to put the fetus before the needs, wants and wellbeing of the woman carrying it.

However I don’t believe in imposing my view on the whole of society - I think we should leave it up to each individual woman as to whether she prioritizes her own life or that of the fetus.

eviltwin

Andrew Beef wrote: »

No, but an offence of “uteral infanticide” or something like that.

It is morally wrong.

It's interesting and somewhat confusing that we have granted the unborn equal right to life but we don't consider them equal enough that a woman who has an abortion here will be charged with murder. It's like having an abortion here is a crime against the state rather than the unborn. It's a weird state of affairs.

What kind of penalty would you impose on these women?

kylith

Andrew Beef wrote: »

No, but an offence of “uteral infanticide” or something like that.

It is morally wrong.

I don't believe that it is morally wrong. Why should your belief top mine?

Sweetemotion

kylith wrote: »

I don't believe that it is morally wrong. Why should your belief top mine?

Why do you think yours should top theirs?

SusieBlue

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Why do you think yours should top theirs?

If we repeal the 8th everyone’s beliefs can be upheld.
Those that want abortion, can have it. Those that don’t, can continue their lives as normal.
Everyone can have their own individual say on the matter.
The current situation means that those with similar views to PP’s come out on top.

kylith

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Why do you think yours should top theirs?

My belief has no effect on people who believe differently, no-one will be forced to have an abortion based on my belief.

However women will be denied medical care based on the opposing belief, and will be forced to bear children that they don't want or can't afford, or have to spend thousands travelling to the UK. Why should someone's belief that a fetus is alive force people who believe differently to do things they don't want to?

kylith

pleas advice wrote: »

that ignores the issue, you're forcing your view on society, as a whole.

No I'm not. You are.

SusieBlue

pleas advice wrote: »

that ignores the issue, you're forcing your view on society, as a whole.

How? Please explain how? Unless we will be performing abortions on women against their will, how will we be imposing our views?

pleas advice

kylith wrote: »

My belief has no effect on people who believe differently, no-one will be forced to have an abortion based on my belief.

ignores the issue

Why should someone's belief the fact that a fetus is alive force people who believe differently refuse to acknowledge this do things they don't want to?

why can't 'pro-choice' people have the courage of their convictions, acknowledge it is a live, genetically separate, human entity.

And then say that 'my rights trump this entities rights'

SusieBlue

pleas advice wrote: »

ignores the issue

why can't 'pro-choice' people have the courage of their convictions, acknowledge it is a live, genetically separate, human entity.

And then say that 'my rights trump this entities rights'

If it was a separate human entity we could just deliver the fetus at ANY gestation because it wouldn’t be relying on the mother.
We could then just pass the fetus over to social services and the woman could move on with her life.

Except that can’t happen. Fetuses cannot grow or thrive without the mother as host until at least 24 weeks gestation. Minimum.
So before that time, the baby is very much part of her. Because if it wasn’t, removing it at any time would pose no issues.
We would have no need for abortions.

So that just knocks that little notion of yours on the head. While it depends on her for survival, it’s very much part of her. And it should be up to her what happens to it.

pleas advice

'genetically separate' though

kylith

pleas advice wrote: »

ignores the issue

why can't 'pro-choice' people have the courage of their convictions, acknowledge it is a live, genetically separate, human entity.

And then say that 'my rights trump this entities rights'

Because that is not a fact. That it is alive is your opinion. It may be human tissue but I believe that it is not a separate entity until it is capable of living separately. At the timescales we are talking about it doesn't have a functioning brain.

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

'genetically separate' though

So?

kylith

pleas advice wrote: »

'genetically separate' though

Irrelevant.

Water John

If genetically separate is the measure, then the MAP should be banned also.
That generally prevents a fused egg from implanting.

pleas advice

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So?

so, it is a distinct human entity. which should afford it some rights, or some consideration from society as a whole,

2wsxcde3

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Fetuses cannot grow or thrive without the mother as host until at least 24 weeks gestation. Minimum.
So before that time, the baby is very much part of her.

While it depends on her for survival, it’s very much part of her. And it should be up to her what happens to it.

A homeless person in a coma is completely dependent on the hospital. That doesn't give the hospital the right to pull the plug whenever they want. If we can keep a human being alive (and in the case of an unborn baby, keep them alive so they become an independent human being when they are born), i believe we have a duty to keep them alive.

kylith

pleas advice wrote: »

so, it is a distinct human entity. which should afford it some rights, or some consideration from society as a whole,

It is not distinct. It is dependent on the woman’s body as a life support system. Therefore she should be allowed to decide whether she wants that or not.

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

'genetically separate' though

Genetically separate - what do you mean by that? It's genes come from it's mum and dad, word origin Genesis, as in the bible. How do you imagine it survives in the womb of the woman if nature did not allow it to consume food from that woman?

pleas advice

as in, it is not akin to a toenail clipping, or a scab, or sperm, or egg,

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

so, it is a distinct human entity. which should afford it some rights, or some consideration from society as a whole,

It is a non-sentient entity of the genus Homo homo sapiens which is utterly dependent on a host for survival. It is incapable of surviving unless it draws all of it's nutrients from the host. It is not capable of thought, emotion, or react to stimuli.

It is 'alive' only in the narrowest sense of the word, a more accurate term would be it exists.

It's host, however, - baring accident/rape - is generally a sentient born human being capable of independent living, thought, emotion, and reaction to stimuli.

To say the two are equal is utter nonsense.

To insist that a woman has to host this dependent entity [your word] against her will is an appalling breach of the humans rights of a living human being.

Bannasidhe

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

A homeless person in a coma is completely dependent on the hospital. That doesn't give the hospital the right to pull the plug whenever they want. If we can keep a human being alive (and in the case of an unborn baby, keep them alive so they become an independent human being when they are born), i believe we have a duty to keep them alive.

What are you talking about?
Hospitals frequently turn off life support when it is deemed the person is no longer sentient.

2wsxcde3

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What are you talking about?
Hospitals frequently turn off life support when it is deemed the person is no longer sentient.

And keep it switched on when the person looks like they will live.

Bannasidhe

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

And keep it switched on when the person looks like they will live.

Not quite.
When it is deemed there is no brain function but the body is technically alive they stop feeding - essentially meaning a technically alive but not sentient person starves to death.

Sentience is the determining factor. A fetus under 12 weeks old is not sentient.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

A homeless person in a coma is completely dependent on the hospital. That doesn't give the hospital the right to pull the plug whenever they want. If we can keep a human being alive (and in the case of an unborn baby, keep them alive so they become an independent human being when they are born), i believe we have a duty to keep them alive.

Unless the homeless person in hospital is using another person as a human incubator then the situations are not the same and cannot be compared.

captbarnacles

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Fetuses cannot grow or thrive without the mother as host until at least 24 weeks gestation. Minimum.
So before that time, the baby is very much part of her.

While it depends on her for survival, it’s very much part of her. And it should be up to her what happens to it.

A homeless person in a coma is completely dependent on the hospital. That doesn't give the hospital the right to pull the plug whenever they want. If we can keep a human being alive (and in the case of an unborn baby, keep them alive so they become an independent human being when they are born), i believe we have a duty to keep them alive.

Hospitals are not equal to a woman's womb. Society is NOT allowed to demand use of your body and this right even extends to when you are dead.

captbarnacles

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Fetuses cannot grow or thrive without the mother as host until at least 24 weeks gestation. Minimum.
So before that time, the baby is very much part of her.

While it depends on her for survival, it’s very much part of her. And it should be up to her what happens to it.

A homeless person in a coma is completely dependent on the hospital. That doesn't give the hospital the right to pull the plug whenever they want. If we can keep a human being alive (and in the case of an unborn baby, keep them alive so they become an independent human being when they are born), i believe we have a duty to keep them alive.

Women are not vessels for society to use to produce children. Your hospital analogy says clearly how you think. Society cannot demand use of your body and this right extends beyond death.

2wsxcde3

captbarnacles wrote: »

Women are not vessels for society to use to produce children. Your hospital analogy says clearly how you think. Society cannot demand use of your body and this right extends beyond death.

Yes it can. If a child stumbles on a cliff edge and is hanging over the edge, the state requires you to pull him up before he falls. You can't just sit back and continue eating your ice cream while he's screaming for your help.

They are called "Duty To Rescue" laws. You can't claim bodily autonomy and just do nothing.

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue )

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

as in, it is not akin to a toenail clipping, or a scab, or sperm, or egg,

Really? While one can argue [if one so chooses] that a feotus in the womb is a genetically separate entity, completely unlike and distinct from a toenail clipping, or a scab [or even a rib], i doubt if such a claim could be made in respect of genetics when it comes to an egg or sperm. I believe that such a claim would be turning the whole basis of human reproduction, and church knowledge and teachings of same, on its head. IMO, it sound's a mightily strange theory not entirely related to abortion.