The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

mrkiscool2

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I'm testing the consistency of the pro-choice position (which is a fair thing to do in any argument). If you truly believe a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body, then you have to follow that position to its natural conclusion.

But we seem to be seeing that pro-choice people don't believe that women who follow a religion or culture different from their own should have the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body.

Pro-life people are often viewed as "controlling a woman and her body" if they are against abortion. But you can see from your own position on FGM (which i presume you are against it), your position is out of compassion for how the procedure impacts other people (such as women who don't want FGM) and children who are given no say in the procedure (like the unborn child). And so you don't believe the procedure should be legalized simply to placate women who do want FGM ...due to the effect it will have on those who don't want it.

Right. Calmed down a bit. I still stand by what I said, but I'm willing to wade through your sh1te.

Firstly, right, you can't even keep the goal posts in the same place on the FGM point. Firstly, it's "Well, women want this, so you have to support it because you support abortion." Then it's "Well, Ireland is patriarchal!" and finally "Men force women to get FGM so will therefore force women to get abortions here. Checkmate, Atheists!". Seriously, can you have one logical consistent point? (Even if you are poisoning the well and taking a real issue for women in other countries where they are cut so they can't enjoy sex, just to cement their place as fcuk toys and baby-makers, as the same as abortion. It's not, FGM is far more a serious issue to solve than abortion, but we don't have the FGM issue here because we outlaw disgusting practices on people under 18.)

Secondly, if a grown woman, above the age of 18, wants to have her genitals mutilated to leave a scar and never feel pleasure for sex, more power to her. The same way guys can get circumcised to make their penis look better, even if it means the sex isn't as good for them.

Thirdly, if someone doesn't support FGM but does support abortion, that doesn't make them logically inconsistent. It just makes them someone who doesn't want to see FGM become something children are forced into due to religion, or being raised to get it done the minute they turn 18 or their family will disown them!

sondagefaux

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

What has it got with the right of a woman to chose to terminate a pregnancy.

I'm testing the consistency of the pro-choice position (which is a fair thing to do in any argument). If you truly believe a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body, then you have to follow that position to its natural conclusion.

But we seem to be seeing that pro-choice people don't believe that women who follow a religion or culture different from their own should have the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body.

Pro-life people are often viewed as "controlling a woman and her body" if they are against abortion. But you can see from your own position on FGM (which i presume you are against it), your position is out of compassion for how the procedure impacts other people (such as women who don't want FGM) and children who are given no say in the procedure (like the unborn child). And so you don't believe the procedure should be legalized simply to placate women who do want FGM ...due to the effect it will have on those who don't want it.

You haven't provided any evidence that women are freely consenting to FGM. The article you linked to in support specifically says that decisions about female circumcision taken in societies the researcher is familiar with are not taken by individual women consenting freely, but are the result of family and social pressures.

Spanish Eyes

Looks like the referendum will pass. Too many lunatics in the asylum now making no sense at all really. Shame on them.

The decision should be between the woman and her medical advisor and no one else.

But sure that would mean no one else has control over women.

ForestFire

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

No, you can ask questions. Never said you couldn't. And actually, originally, I thought you were asking should we in the sense should we make it law, which was fine. Again, I can find your question revolting but you have every right to ask it.

And no, the question isn't asking do we think it's okay to abandon one's sick child because it is sick. It is asking whether or not a woman should be allowed to choose whether they go through with 9 months of highly difficult pregnancy followed by (at minimum) 18 years of supporting that fetus once it's born (and becomes a child).


Gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. The link doesn't work. You can repost and I'll read it and THEN answer you.

You did not sat you found it disgusting, you said it was disgusting to even ask it, as if I should not, but let's move on.

I'll ask again, can you see how the referendum question could be seen as the same type of question to some people and they might just find it too much too far?(Not to you or possible even me , but to some people who believe the fetus is life, right or wrong, proven or not ,with our current understanding.)

2wsxcde3

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Secondly, if a grown woman, above the age of 18, wants to have her genitals mutilated to leave a scar and never feel pleasure for sex, more power to her. The same way guys can get circumcised to make their penis look better, even if it means the sex isn't as good for them.
!

Some women might want FGM because they think it will make her seem "pure" to her future husband. Just like some women undergo breast enlargement to make themselves more appealing to their future husband. But the woman who wants FGM is discriminated against in Ireland because FGM is illegal in this country. And so she is forced to travel abroad to get it done, and made feel like a criminal in the process. If you agree that a consenting woman to FGM should be given the choice, then you should be against the 2012 law making it illegal here in Ireland and in favor of setting up the practice in our hospitals where it can be done under a safe medical environment.

But of course, innocent women and children will get caught up in the crossfire if you do that. And so it shouldn't be done.

Ken.

Mod-Ok, The FGM is done with. Their is a thread around here somewhere for that topic so drop it in this thread. This thread is a really good debate and we are loathe to start thread-banning people.

2wsxcde3

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The decision should be between the woman and her medical advisor and no one else.

That's what Ali Selim said!

mrkiscool2

ForestFire wrote: »

You did not sat you found it disgusting, you said it was disgusting to even ask it, as if I should not, but let's move on.

I'll ask again, can you see how the referendum question could be seen as the same type of question to some people and they might just find it too much too far?(Not to you or possible even me , but to some people who believe the fetus is life, right or wrong, proven or not ,with our current understanding.)

Apologies, I should have preferenced with "I".

Sure, the same way that some people (like myself) think it's disgusting that the state should have any control on whether or not a woman should have to carry a fetus to term. We can all find questions disgusting but the tough questions have to asked, especially when they put lives at risk or ask someone to go through 9 months of pain and suffering.

Spanish Eyes

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

That's what Ali Selim said!

Who is he? What control has he regarding women in this country?

Shoo.

sondagefaux

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The decision should be between the woman and her medical advisor and no one else.

That's what Ali Selim said!

Since the mods have decided that FGM can't be discussed in this thread, I've sent you a PM. The gist of it is that your interpretation of the law on FGM in Ireland is wrong. I won't discuss FGM any further in this thread.

Edward M

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Looks like the referendum will pass. Too many lunatics in the asylum now making no sense at all really. Shame on them.

The decision should be between the woman and her medical advisor and no one else.

But sure that would mean no one else has control over women.

Her medical advisor might!
But if you're after free choice, then the medical advisor doesn't count anyway.
Basically the only reason a doctor or medical advisor would be needed is to administer tablets or surgical abortion, their advice need only be needed in cases where continuing a wanted pregnancy would have adverse affects on the woman's health or the baby's.

JDD

Presumably someone means "it's between the woman and her medical advisor" they don't mean the decision is a joint one. They mean the logistics of it are between the woman and her medical advisor. Obviously her GP is there to explain any health risks and side effects, like they do before prescribing anything. Some GPs might try to have a discussion regarding how the woman was feeling about making the decision, whether she might want counselling in advance of making a final decision or whether she may want counselling after terminating etc, especially if she's looking particularly stressed or voices any internal conflict. However to be honest I would say most GPs won't have time for those sorts of conversations, hence why GPs were so annoyed that they weren't consulted before Simon Harris announced that the abortion pill would be a GP-led service. And ultimately a GP won't have any actual decision making powers.

pilly

I heard Cora Sherlock on the news at lunchtime basically trying to call a halt to the referendum by calling in question the whole process of the Citizens Assembly.

It's such a sign of panic when you're scrambling around trying desperately to prevent the public from having any say in this. When asked if surely the referendum result was the only one that matters she stuttered and stammered like mad.

It gave me comfort anyway, if the pro-lifers were sure of a win they'd be pushing for a referendum tomorrow.

railer201

pilly wrote: »

I heard Cora Sherlock on the news at lunchtime basically trying to call a halt to the referendum by calling in question the whole process of the Citizens Assembly.

It's such a sign of panic when you're scrambling around trying desperately to prevent the public from having any say in this. When asked if surely the referendum result was the only one that matters she stuttered and stammered like mad.

It gave me comfort anyway, if the pro-lifers were sure of a win they'd be pushing for a referendum tomorrow.

Of course, throwing spanners in the works is to be expected - the CA produced a result the pro-life movement didn't want and subsequent polls have also - not to mention Paddy Power. Democracy can be such a pi$$er at times. :rolleyes:

Zubeneschamali

pilly wrote: »

It gave me comfort anyway, if the pro-lifers were sure of a win they'd be pushing for a referendum tomorrow.

I think Sherlock is now at the stage of scrambling to build excuses for after they lose. I wouldn't be surprised if they threaten a court case to stop the referendum, but I would be surprised i they actually go to court.

ForestFire

pilly wrote: »

I heard Cora Sherlock on the news at lunchtime basically trying to call a halt to the referendum by calling in question the whole process of the Citizens Assembly.

It's such a sign of panic when you're scrambling around trying desperately to prevent the public from having any say in this. When asked if surely the referendum result was the only one that matters she stuttered and stammered like mad.

It gave me comfort anyway, if the pro-lifers were sure of a win they'd be pushing for a referendum tomorrow.

I don't agree with it and I don't believe it had any material effect, but from there point of view, you can see why they would use it to their advantage.

Their belief is that the 8th should be maintained, so why would they not use any opportunity to sway opinion to their advantage (If possible).

I think the real question is why the CA was even set-up in the first place (Not particularly to do with this topic, just in general as a scapegoat for politicians)

splinter65

pilly wrote: »

I heard Cora Sherlock on the news at lunchtime basically trying to call a halt to the referendum by calling in question the whole process of the Citizens Assembly.

It's such a sign of panic when you're scrambling around trying desperately to prevent the public from having any say in this. When asked if surely the referendum result was the only one that matters she stuttered and stammered like mad.

It gave me comfort anyway, if the pro-lifers were sure of a win they'd be pushing for a referendum tomorrow.

I was listening out in the kitchen and I didn’t here any stammering but the point is, would you not prefer Pilly if the referendum went ahead based on a completely unbiased report from the CA?
You do realize that if the referendum is carried now there will be endless cases to the High Court based on this ?

splinter65

ForestFire wrote: »

I don't agree with it and I don't believe it had any material effect, but from there point of view, you can see why they would use it to their advantage.

Their belief is that the 8th should be maintained, so why would they not use any opportunity to sway opinion to their advantage (If possible).

I think the real question is why the CA was even set-up in the first place (Not particularly to do with this topic, just in general as a scapegoat for politicians)

My mother is adamant that it was set up to avoid politicians having to take responsibilty for desicions of a sensitive nature.

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

I was listening out in the kitchen and I didn’t here any stammering but the point is, would you not prefer Pilly if the referendum went ahead based on a completely unbiased report from the CA?
You do realize that if the referendum is carried now there will be endless cases to the High Court based on this ?

are you assuming that the report from the CA was biased?

splinter65

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are you assuming that the report from the CA was biased?

Well it’s a bit cloudy today would you not agree? Cloudy enough for it to be an issue?

pilly

splinter65 wrote: »

I was listening out in the kitchen and I didn’t here any stammering but the point is, would you not prefer Pilly if the referendum went ahead based on a completely unbiased report from the CA?
You do realize that if the referendum is carried now there will be endless cases to the High Court based on this ?

No I don't agree. The referendum will be voted for by all the citizens of Ireland, the CA is irrelevant to that vote.

There is no legal basis for bringing this to the high court. CA recommendations are just that, recommendations, nothing legally binding in them. In fact the Oireachtas committee were free to ignore them and they did disagree with some.

So in short, no, the referendum is needed, I don't see why either side would be afraid of the referendum.

It's the ultimate power play to try to stop the referendum happening at all and only shows weakness.

Loafing Oaf

splinter65 wrote: »

You do realize that if the referendum is carried now there will be endless cases to the High Court based on this ?

Yeah, the same way same-sex marriage and POLDPA were definitely going to be thrown out by the Supreme Court...

Orion

pilly wrote: »

I heard Cora Sherlock on the news at lunchtime basically trying to call a halt to the referendum by calling in question the whole process of the Citizens Assembly.

It's such a sign of panic when you're scrambling around trying desperately to prevent the public from having any say in this. When asked if surely the referendum result was the only one that matters she stuttered and stammered like mad.

It gave me comfort anyway, if the pro-lifers were sure of a win they'd be pushing for a referendum tomorrow.

Fianna Fáil’s Eamon Scanlon at it in the Dail too. 7 members of the CA who met last month for a totally different issue doesn't impact on CA conclusions from last year! Mattie was at it as well.

pilly

Orion wrote: »

Fianna Fáil’s Eamon Scanlon at it in the Dail too. 7 members of the CA who met last month for a totally different issue doesn't impact on CA conclusions from last year! Mattie was at it as well.

It's sickening but funny at the same time. Like when they were arguing over why there wasn't a person from each county on it.

What do they not get about the fact the WHOLE population will get the chance to vote. The committees aren't making any decisions.

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

Well it’s a bit cloudy today would you not agree? Cloudy enough for it to be an issue?

what does the weather have to do with anything? Besides, the CA only made recommendations that the government were free to ignore. This is just another pathetic attempt by the save the 8th crowd to stop the country advancing into the 21st century.

seamus

splinter65 wrote: »

You do realize that if the referendum is carried now there will be endless cases to the High Court based on this ?

People are free to waste their money with endless cases to the High Court, but since there is no legislative aspect to the CA, the High Court would continually just throw the cases out.

The outcome of a referendum is unaffected by whatever mechanism has been used to decide to hold that referendum in the first place.

Even if someone could prove that George Soros himself wrote the amendment*, that wouldn't affect the fact that it was democratically approved.

*Obviously I'm being facetious, don't go down this rabbit hole

Zubeneschamali

splinter65 wrote: »

You do realize that if the referendum is carried now there will be endless cases to the High Court based on this ?

I must stock up on popcorn.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

pilly

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think that's a more serious issue than the CA sideline, that could have an effect certainly on the wording of the referendum.

seamus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It depends.

If the Supreme Court were to uphold the High Court's interpretation, then we'd have a lot more to worry about than just abortion. It would bestow a whole load of effective rights on the unborn which would cause waves across lots of areas - from pregnancy care to social welfare, justice, marriage, housing, immigration, and so on.

Ultimately we would still end up with a proposal to repeal the eighth amendment, but the "replace" bit will likely aim to ensure that the unborn cannot be construed to have the rights of a citizen until birth or until a specific time as defined by law. Although it may not seem possible, it'll be an even more complicated debate.

It's unlikely that the Supreme Court will uphold the High Court's ruling, but if it does we can expect a whole host of madness to unfold.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the High Court's ruling, then the current referendum will stay on track.

Charmeleon

seamus wrote: »

People are free to waste their money with endless cases to the High Court, but since there is no legislative aspect to the CA, the High Court would continually just throw the cases out.

The outcome of a referendum is unaffected by whatever mechanism has been used to decide to hold that referendum in the first place.

Even if someone could prove that George Soros himself wrote the amendment*, that wouldn't affect the fact that it was democratically approved.

*Obviously I'm being facetious, don't go down this rabbit hole

I guess the problem will be that the CA made recommendations for the oireachtas who will draw up the proposed wording. The findings are presented to the public as being a fair and balanced look at the complex issues and the outcome as representative as possible to the diversity of opinion in the wider community.

It looks extremely bad for the supposed impartiality of the CA, first we had the statisticians looking at the selection and finding it is ‘unintentionally biased’ having excluded the more stereotypically conservative midlands and south west, now we have actual evidence of intentional skewing of the composition of the assembly.

People were led to believe they were presenting an unbiased consensus, now it looks more like a propaganda exercise. That’s bad for the democratic process itself.

Zubeneschamali

Charmeleon wrote: »

People were led to believe they were presenting an unbiased consensus, now it looks more like a propaganda exercise. That’s bad for the democratic process itself.

Nothing about the current scandal makes the CA look like a propaganda exercise. It looks like an employee at a private firm took a shortcut after the 8th debate was long over.

uptherebels

Charmeleon wrote: »

I guess the problem will be that the CA made recommendations for the oireachtas who will draw up the proposed wording. The findings are presented to the public as being a fair and balanced look at the complex issues and the outcome as representative as possible to the diversity of opinion in the wider community.

It looks extremely bad for the supposed impartiality of the CA, first we had the statisticians looking at the selection and finding it is ‘unintentionally biased’ having excluded the more stereotypically conservative midlands and south west, now we have actual evidence of intentional skewing of the composition of the assembly.

People were led to believe they were presenting an unbiased consensus, now it looks more like a propaganda exercise. That’s bad for the democratic process itself.

We had statiticans applying a selection method that by their own admission was not the one used by Red C.
From
http://https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/an-unintended-bias-in-the-citizens-assembly-1.2908884

"They appear to have employed a hybrid method with a random component but including systematic aspects in the interests of balance."

You mean the assembly was skewed that only looked at how referendums were held in this country and didn't have any say on the abortion assembly?

"The seven people attended the assembly meeting of January 13th and 14th when it considered and voted on the manner in which referendums are held.

They did not attend or take part in earlier assembly meetings, when it considered abortion, after which an Oireachtas committee was established to consider the findings of the Citizens’ Assembly."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/call-for-abortion-vote-delay-over-citizens-assembly-recruitment-1.3401905

Funny how you ignore what actually happened.

Charmeleon

uptherebels wrote: »

We had statiticans applying a selection method that by their own admission was not the one used by Red C.
From
http://https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/an-unintended-bias-in-the-citizens-assembly-1.2908884

"They appear to have employed a hybrid method with a random component but including systematic aspects in the interests of balance."

You mean the assembly was skewed that only looked at how referendums were held in this country and didn't have any say on the abortion assembly?

"The seven people attended the assembly meeting of January 13th and 14th when it considered and voted on the manner in which referendums are held.

They did not attend or take part in earlier assembly meetings, when it considered abortion, after which an Oireachtas committee was established to consider the findings of the Citizens’ Assembly."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/call-for-abortion-vote-delay-over-citizens-assembly-recruitment-1.3401905

Funny how you ignore what actually happened.

We don’t know what happened, only that the selection was not random but had ‘systematic aspects’ as stated in the article. What were the ‘systematic aspects’? How do we know they were interested in balance, as the article writers cautiously assume? Do we have transparency or not? We now know votes did go ahead with specially selected members.

Charmeleon

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nothing about the current scandal makes the CA look like a propaganda exercise. It looks like an employee at a private firm took a shortcut after the 8th debate was long over.

Fine, maybe it was just a bad egg, let’s have an inquiry to find out.

Billy86

ForestFire wrote: »

I don't agree with it and I don't believe it had any material effect, but from there point of view, you can see why they would use it to their advantage.

Their belief is that the 8th should be maintained, so why would they not use any opportunity to sway opinion to their advantage (If possible).

Don't worry, I'm sure the usual suspects will be on here any moment now to give out about the pro-lifers attempting to silence the public from having their voice.

Any.

Moment.

Now...

seamus

Charmeleon wrote: »

Fine, maybe it was just a bad egg, let’s have an inquiry to find out.

It looks like an enquiry has already been carried out, the employee in question has been disciplined.

What purpose would it serve to hand over millions of euro to judges and barristers in an "enquiry"? To what end?

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

It looks like an enquiry has already been carried out, the employee in question has been disciplined.

What purpose would it serve to hand over millions of euro to judges and barristers in an "enquiry"? To what end?

what do you think? they just want to delay a referendum they are terrified of losing. If they lose this referendum they have no reason for existence. Iona and the likes i mean.

david75

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what do you think? they just want to delay a referendum they are terrified of losing. If they lose this referendum they have no reason for existence. Iona and the likes i mean.

Theyre already getting ready for the church running schools and the right to die debates.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

uptherebels

Charmeleon wrote: »

We don’t know what happened, only that the selection was not random but had ‘systematic aspects’ as stated in the article. What were the ‘systematic aspects’? How do we know they were interested in balance, as the article writers cautiously assume? Do we have transparency or not? We now know votes did go ahead with specially selected members.

because if you have a completely random selection there is no guarantee that it will be balanced. I.e a random selection could have returned 99 teenagers or 99 pensioners. Would that have been balanced?

So if you want balance there has to be limits and control.

People going on about no representation from counties. RED C would have looked at the country as a whole. Tha'ts why 40 out of the 99 members came from the dublin or cork, which happen to be the biggest population concentrations in the country.

Leitrim and longford don't have any because they have a combined population of approx 70,000.
If red c are looking for a middle aged divorced lawyer where are they probably going to find them?

ohnonotgmail

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

well that is me fecked so

ohnonotgmail

david75 wrote: »

Theyre already getting ready for the church running schools and the right to die debates.

i think that one is another lost cause. the second will probably take a lot longer.

splinter65

pilly wrote: »

No I don't agree. The referendum will be voted for by all the citizens of Ireland, the CA is irrelevant to that vote.

There is no legal basis for bringing this to the high court. CA recommendations are just that, recommendations, nothing legally binding in them. In fact the Oireachtas committee were free to ignore them and they did disagree with some.

So in short, no, the referendum is needed, I don't see why either side would be afraid of the referendum.

It's the ultimate power play to try to stop the referendum happening at all and only shows weakness.

Sure we’ll have to wait and see what happens on the day. I only hear pro life people in the media. When are the pro appeal people going to get their show on the road?

splinter65

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what do you think? they just want to delay a referendum they are terrified of losing. If they lose this referendum they have no reason for existence. Iona and the likes i mean.

Do you think that the referendum being carried will mean the end of RCC in Ireland? Why do you think that? The RCC is going strong in all kinds of places where there are abortions. That’s an interesting theory? Can you enlarge?

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

Do you think that the referendum being carried will mean the end of RCC in Ireland? Why do you think that? The RCC is going strong in all kinds of places where there are abortions. That’s an interesting theory? Can you enlarge?

who mentioned the end of the catholic church? I didn't.

splinter65

david75 wrote: »

Theyre already getting ready for the church running schools and the right to die debates.

Amazing how unsurprised I am to find you here already moving on from killing people at one end to killing them at the other. When I’m picturing you now to be honest I’m seeing Pol Pot. I just can’t think of anyone else.

splinter65

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

who mentioned the end of the catholic church? I didn't.

The idea that Iona only exists to put the side of the unborn baby?

Annasopra

splinter65 wrote: »

I was listening out in the kitchen and I didn’t here any stammering but the point is, would you not prefer Pilly if the referendum went ahead based on a completely unbiased report from the CA?
You do realize that if the referendum is carried now there will be endless cases to the High Court based on this ?

Sorry what? The CA processes for the 8th have not even been called into question

david75

splinter65 wrote: »

Amazing how unsurprised I am to find you here already moving on from killing people at one end to killing them at the other. When I’m picturing you now to be honest I’m seeing Pol Pot. I just can’t think of anyone else.

Nice. Reported.
Who said anything about killing people? The right to die debate will happen eventually and safe to shuns Iona etc are against it.

I never said if I supported it eitherway by the way. Try and read posts before shooting your mouth off about them.