The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Charmeleon

Charmeleon wrote: »

I think everyone agrees with that. The disagreement is over the proposition that the foetus is as important as a batch of out of date bread. My children are infinitely more important than my pets, I don't treat the animals like walking medical waste though.

I don't believe anyone actually going through an abortion believes that the fetus isn't important.
But, living breathing women are more important, & that is the issue with the 8th amendment.
I personally take great offence to the fact that The State can treat me like a second class citizen because of this amendment.

tonymontanavu

This is my first post on boards and I probably only joined to write it!
This is a subject that I find both sides of the argument extremely frustrating. I have an opinion on the result that I would like but find it difficult to discuss the matter with either side. I might as well state my side for transparency; I feel the 8th amendment should be repealed and terminations allowed in all cases up to twelve weeks and where the mothers welfare is compromised (within reason in terms of the stage of the pregnancy).
I find it extremely insensitive that people on the same side as me reduce the "fetus" to nothing more than cells and argue sentience or any other measure of how human "it" is. Regardless of all of that, it is a baby in the early stages of development, different to a developed baby but not without value and rightly treasured by many potential parents.
I also hate the teen/20's women that feel victimised that it is not already an option and it's their body their choice. They are of course perfectly correct regarding circumstances out of the ordinary like the mothers health is comprised or if they were forcibly impregnated etc (Any pro life person who argues to keep the situation exactly as it is heartless in my opinion) but they do currently have the choice of not having sex and therefore not risking the chance of becoming pregnant. What they are arguing is that if they choose to have sex (which always carries a risk of pregnancy regardless of protection) and they do indeed get pregnant they wouldlike another choice- to end that pregnancy. I think that is a reasonable position but you have to accept that is the position.
The crux of the argument for me is this - abortion is already available for these women but is not easy to access, involves delays, risks the woman's health travelling etc etc. To keep it inaccessible here is needlessly cruel.
If you are religious, don't get one - others can and you will still go to heaven etc.
People should just be honest - we are human not some higher power, we kill and eat other creatures because we like to eat them and we have a similar ability to block out the moral implications of an abortion - and that is fine.

realitykeeper

kylith wrote: »

we’ll just re-legalise marital rape, slavery, and wife beating, shall we?

The bible is one of the worst sources of morality one could think of.

There does seem to be a new "morality" rapidly evolving in western society. To understand what that new morality will look like, just look to the old USSR. I know millennials and society at large do not think the west will become Communist but in truth we are already there. All that is required is the collapse of (what passes as) capitalism in the west and then you will see what I mean.

When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, the USSR was perceived as a joyless place where nobody ever seemed to smile or laugh. The Soviets had a kind of morality that would have fitted the "me too" people like a glove. Unfortunately, it also came with an ugly and frightening side.

SusieBlue

tonymontanavu wrote: »

This is my first post on boards and I probably only joined to write it!
This is a subject that I find both sides of the argument extremely frustrating. I have an opinion on the result that I would like but find it difficult to discuss the matter with either side. I might as well state my side for transparency; I feel the 8th amendment should be repealed and terminations allowed in all cases up to twelve weeks and where the mothers welfare is compromised (within reason in terms of the stage of the pregnancy).
I find it extremely insensitive that people on the same side as me reduce the "fetus" to nothing more than cells and argue sentience or any other measure of how human "it" is. Regardless of all of that, it is a baby in the early stages of development, different to a developed baby but not without value and rightly treasured by many potential parents.
I also hate the teen/20's women that feel victimised that it is not already an option and it's their body their choice. They are of course perfectly correct regarding circumstances out of the ordinary like the mothers health is comprised or if they were forcibly impregnated etc (Any pro life person who argues to keep the situation exactly as it is heartless in my opinion) but they do currently have the choice of not having sex and therefore not risking the chance of becoming pregnant. What they are arguing is that if they choose to have sex (which always carries a risk of pregnancy regardless of protection) and they do indeed get pregnant they wouldlike another choice- to end that pregnancy. I think that is a reasonable position but you have to accept that is the position.
The crux of the argument for me is this - abortion is already available for these women but is not easy to access, involves delays, risks the woman's health travelling etc etc. To keep it inaccessible here is needlessly cruel.
If you are religious, don't get one - others can and you will still go to heaven etc.
People should just be honest - we are human not some higher power, we kill and eat other creatures because we like to eat them and we have a similar ability to block out the moral implications of an abortion - and that is fine.

I was somewhat agreeing with you and understanding your viewpoint until you got to part bolded.
We should be nothing but proud and supportive of all the young women who are so dedicated to their cause and having their voices heard.
I know I sound like a broken record but it’s very easy to be so dismissive about it when it isn’t your bodily autonomy at stake - which brings me to my next point.

Young women in their teens and twenties are the next generation of pregnant women and mothers and arguably, the outcome of this referendum will effect their lives more than any other age group in the country.

And I say that for both the Save and the Repeal side - if anything at all, it’s great to see young people taking an interest in politics and the referendum, regardless of which side they fall on.
It should be celebrated.

realitykeeper

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Until such time as someone bothers to come up with a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that a god even exists, I am not sure fearing it should be the basis of anything.

Recently I overheard a group of millennials deriding people of faith. A young lady attempted to "defend" the faithful by saying "they don`t know any better." From her tone, I know this remark was sincere and not intended to be in any way derogatory. However, what youngsters fail to understand is that older people lived through an ultra-orthodox Ireland as well as an Ireland of non stop Catholic bashing. In short, we have seen the full movie whereas the youngsters missed the first half. You guys were presented with one paradigm, older people have seen both the former and the latter. We can make an informed choice.

Let he who has understanding count the number of the beast. The Devil seeks to confuse, you see. It is the lack of understanding that enables evil to thrive.

captbarnacles

Charmeleon wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet it makes me neither squirm nor uncomfortable nor compelled to ignore anything, and the implications you suggest are either A) Not that relevant or not actually that bad anyway.

You will find me MORE than willing and capable of having the "uncomfortable" conversations on this subject if they are discussions you actually want to have.

How many times has this rationalisation been repeated to excuse atrocities I wonder. It doesn't bother me, therefore it must be morally justified.

Wth did this come from? Did anyone say that?

Consonata

realitykeeper wrote: »

Recently I overheard a group of millennials deriding people of faith. A young lady attempted to "defend" the faithful by saying "they don`t know any better." From her tone, I know this remark was sincere and not intended to be in any way derogatory. However, what youngsters fail to understand is that older people lived through an ultra-orthodox Ireland as well as an Ireland of non stop Catholic bashing. In short, we have seen the full movie whereas the youngsters missed the first half. You guys were presented with one paradigm, older people have seen both the former and the latter. We can make an informed choice.

Let he who has understanding count the number of the beast. The Devil seeks to confuse, you see. It is the lack of understanding that enables evil to thrive.

Because an institution which has defended and hid pedophiles is one deserving of respect

david75

Ismisejack wrote: »

Everyone is forgetting the person most affected by an abortion, the child killed, with that in mind in considering starting a new forum as there is two people affected here, the mother and the child, and this forum clearly has no interest discussing the child

You’re forgetting that whenever a sentient person is dead, it doesn’t know it’s dead.
An embryo or foetus doesn’t even get to that stage of awareness. It doesn’t have sentience or self awareness.

You’re also forgetting a foetus is not a child. In no universe is it a child.

drillyeye

Has everyone who disagrees with me considered disappearing? Like, literally evaporating from existence.

Cos that's all we really want, to be fair, to be surrounded with agreeable people that think just like us

Thanks in advance

david75

drillyeye wrote: »

Has everyone who disagrees with me considered disappearing? Like, literally evaporating from existence.

Cos that's all we really want, to be fair, to be surrounded with agreeable people that think just like us

Thanks in advance

Forum purpose built for your needs. Look up reddit. You’ll be glad you did.

realitykeeper

Consonata wrote: »

Because an institution which has defended and hid pedophiles is one deserving of respect

The Irish have raped, killed, perpetrated pedophilia, sodomized, lied, cheated, stolen, covered up for wrongdoing, etc, etc, etc. Do the Irish deserve respect?

Edward M

david75 wrote: »

You’re forgetting that whenever a sentient person is dead, it doesn’t know it’s dead.
An embryo or foetus doesn’t even get to that stage of awareness. It doesn’t have sentience or self awareness.

You’re also forgetting a foetus is not a child. In no universe is it a child.

Then what is it?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

nice_guy80

realitykeeper wrote: »

Recently I overheard a group of millennials deriding people of faith. A young lady attempted to "defend" the faithful by saying "they don`t know any better." From her tone, I know this remark was sincere and not intended to be in any way derogatory. However, what youngsters fail to understand is that older people lived through an ultra-orthodox Ireland as well as an Ireland of non stop Catholic bashing. In short, we have seen the full movie whereas the youngsters missed the first half. You guys were presented with one paradigm, older people have seen both the former and the latter. We can make an informed choice.

Let he who has understanding count the number of the beast. The Devil seeks to confuse, you see. It is the lack of understanding that enables evil to thrive.

they ignored the indoctrination?

tonymontanavu

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I was somewhat agreeing with you and understanding your viewpoint until you got to part bolded.
We should be nothing but proud and supportive of all the young women who are so dedicated to their cause and having their voices heard.
I know I sound like a broken record but it’s very easy to be so dismissive about it when it isn’t your bodily autonomy at stake - which brings me to my next point.


Young women in their teens and twenties are the next generation of pregnant women and mothers and arguably, the outcome of this referendum will effect their lives more than any other age group in the country.

And I say that for both the Save and the Repeal side - if anything at all, it’s great to see young people taking an interest in politics and the referendum, regardless of which side they fall on.
It should be celebrated.

That's fine but should their position be unquestionable as a result? You don't address the point I made

tonymontanavu

Fred Swanson wrote: »

A collection of cells.

You are not helping your own position

volchitsa

realitykeeper wrote: »

The Irish have raped, killed, perpetrated pedophilia, sodomized, lied, cheated, stolen, covered up for wrongdoing, etc, etc, etc. Do the Irish deserve respect?

Did the Irish declare that Ireland had a unique insight into morality amd should therefore set up Irish schools and hospitals etc to teach less enlightened nations how to behave?

If they did (in the name of being Irish people, not as Catholics) and then used those institutions to rape and abuse, then you would have a good comparison.

But as you know, that's not what happened. As members of the Catholic church, OTOH....

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

tonymontanavu

Fred Swanson wrote: »

You have no idea of my position, new registered member.

No? New members are usually old lurkers all your previous posts are available

.......

This post has been deleted.

tonymontanavu

....... wrote: »

Plenty of newly registered members with strong views popping up eh?

Is that the most likely position? A trojan horse? Did you read my comments?

tonymontanavu

....... wrote: »

Or rereg trolls.

You are wrong and I don't think my post even remotely gives that impression

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

tonymontanavu wrote: »

That's fine but should their position be unquestionable as a result? You don't address the point I made

Yes of course it should be unquestionable.
In the same way that you or I don’t have to justify our opinions (unless we choose to, on forums such as these) on the matter to society, neither should they.
It’s interesting how you honed in on this one small age demographic - why do they offend you so much?
Why do you feel that one age group should should have to justify their position?

tonymontanavu

....... wrote: »

That you dismissively brush off people for whom contraception fails says enough.



So you think my husband should wait until I am in my 50s to have sex with me? We dont want children. No contraception is 100% safe. There is always a risk.

Responsible people prepare for that risk and have a plan ready, in my case it would mean endangering my own health to seek medical care in another jurisdiction.

Because Im not waiting 40 years to have sex with my husband (we met when i was 17) and that you even think that is a realistic situation shows you have no clue about the reality of peoples lives.

You didn't read what I said or you are being deliberately difficult. I said it's a reasonable position for a woman to say that if they become pregnant after taking precautions then they would like the choice of ending that pregnancy. I simply stated that that is the position and that should be stated.

ohnonotgmail

tonymontanavu wrote: »

You didn't read what I said or you are being deliberately difficult. I said it's a reasonable position for a woman to say that if they become pregnant after taking precautions then they would like the choice of ending that pregnancy. I simply stated that that is the position and that should be stated.

You're right, it is a very reasonable position to take. and yet so many people have a problem with it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

tonymontanavu

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Yes of course it should be unquestionable.
In the same way that you or I don’t have to justify our opinions (unless we choose to, on forums such as these) on the matter to society, neither should they.
It’s interesting how you honed in on this one small age demographic - why do they offend you so much?
Why do you feel that one age group should should have to justify their position?

They are articulating their position publicly to influence the result of a constitutional amendment so if the assert something questionable it should be questioned. Any one of my opinions can and should be open to scrutiny if I make them known.

Everyone should have to justify their position if they make it known. Age groups having a common opinion as a result of surrounding themselves with like minded people and rejecting with anger any counter view points is a huge problem in my opinion. It's not limited to this group and religious over 50s is another if you are looking for some balance

tonymontanavu

....... wrote: »

Sorry - I really stopped reading too closely when I saw you suggesting people had a choice of having sex or not.

But to be honest, regardless of people taking precautions they should have access to abortion services. We dont punish people who take risks in sports by not treating them if they injure themselves and we should not punish women who take a risk and get pregnant either.

You either make it available for all or it just doesnt work. Strings attached abortion is simply trying to shame a woman.

Which is my position and kind of why I posted. Both sides are so quick to go on the defensive that a sensible discussion is very difficult

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

tonymontanavu wrote: »

They are articulating their position publicly to influence the result of a constitutional amendment so if the assert something questionable it should be questioned. Any one of my opinions can and should be open to scrutiny if I make them known.

Everyone should have to justify their position if they make it known. Age groups having a common opinion as a result of surrounding themselves with like minded people and rejecting with anger any counter view points is a huge problem in my opinion. It's not limited to this group and religious over 50s is another if you are looking for some balance

And what you might consider questionable, another might consider to be reasonable and agreeable, so no, they don’t have to justify their opinions to each and every member of society.

Did you miss the part earlier where I pointed out that this age group is amongst the most passionate because the outcome of the referendum directly affects them, as the next generation of pregnant women and mothers?

This referendum will have no direct affects on the religious over 50’s, except for maybe some hurt feelings if it doesn’t go their way.
Yet out of the two groups you picked the young women to complain about, when the referendum directly affects them.
This alone speaks volumes.
Whether you intended to or not, it comes across as a bit mysogenic and condescending towards women. As if their opinion is less valuable and is plain annoying purely because of their age.

tonymontanavu

....... wrote: »

You stated that if a woman took precautions then needed an abortion then that was ok.

I think if a woman needs an abortion under any circumstances its ok. She is not required to be taking precautions to qualify for it.

I said that if you choose to have sex you can become pregnant. If you become pregnant you would like the choice to end it. I think people should state that clearly - that's it. I didn't suggest any conditions to that decision bar the 12 weeks

tonymontanavu

WhiteRoses wrote: »

And what you might consider questionable, another might consider to be reasonable and agreeable, so no, they don’t have to justify their opinions to each and every member of society.

Did you miss the part earlier where I pointed out that this age group is amongst the most passionate because the outcome of the referendum directly affects them, as the next generation of pregnant women and mothers?

This referendum will have no direct affects on the religious over 50’s, except for maybe some hurt feelings if it doesn’t go their way.
Yet out of the two groups you picked the young women to complain about, when the referendum directly affects them.
This alone speaks volumes.
Whether you intended to or not, it comes across as a bit mysogenic and condescending towards women. As if their opinion is less valuable and is plain annoying purely because of their age.

That's called a debate which is what this is. I complained about both sides but pointed out one side who are probably most militant because of their close investment to the outcome as you point out (and therefore more close minded to opposing positions).

Bringing my hatred of women into it without any background is another thing I can't stand and is an incredibly condescending argument in my opinion.

ohnonotgmail

tonymontanavu wrote: »

That's called a debate which is what this is. I complained about both sides but pointed out one side who are probably most militant because of their close investment to the outcome as you point out (and therefore more close minded to opposing positions).

Bringing my hatred of women into it without any background is another thing I can't stand and is an incredibly condescending argument in my opinion.

we have heard all the opposing positions ad nauseum. They have nothing to offer. Is it any wonder that young people reject them?

applehunter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we have heard all the opposing positions ad nauseum. They have nothing to offer. Is it any wonder that young people reject them?

#repealshield.

ohnonotgmail

applehunter wrote: »

#repealshield.

what an excellent argument.

pilly

So the new pro life tactic is to pretend to be pro choice and throw a load of straw men out there.

How clever. :rolleyes:

.......

This post has been deleted.

TomSweeney

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what an excellent argument.

It's a start, its handy on twitter for blocking all the shyte these people send to you

volchitsa

tonymontanavu wrote: »

I said that if you choose to have sex you can become pregnant. If you become pregnant you would like the choice to end it. I think people should state that clearly - that's it. I didn't suggest any conditions to that decision bar the 12 weeks

Are you saying this is the only, or the "real" reason people want repeal of the 8th?

If so, I think you are mistakenly trying to mindread, because there are other very good reasons for wanting the8th gone.

ohnonotgmail

TomSweeney wrote: »

It's a start, its handy on twitter for blocking all the shyte these people send to you

If i look at that hashtag on twitter all i see are posts from iona-lite accounts.

tonymontanavu

volchitsa wrote: »

Are you saying this is the only, or the "real" reason people want repeal of the 8th?

If so, I think you are mistakenly trying to mindread, because there are other very good reasons for wanting the8th gone.

No

volchitsa

tonymontanavu wrote: »

No

So I dont know what you were saying then.
Some people want Repeal because they support a right to choose for abortion, others agree to having abortion for choice because it seems to be the only long term solution to solve the problem of the 8th amendment which harms women.

Coming on here and dictating what other people "should" say is suggesting that people arent being upfront about their opinons It is a bit weird for a "new" poster TBH.

JDD

I do sort of get what Tony Montana is saying. When campaigning for any sort of legislative change, you should make some effort to understand the reasons why someone might vote against your views. How else are you to persuade them to vote differently? And surely that is the point of a campaign - the people who will vote with you are already there. A campaign is to try and convince those that oppose your views to change their mind. Now, you're never going to change the mind of someone who is Iona Institute or Opus Dei (or both). But by calmly arguing against them, especially on a forum like this, you may convince a lurker or others to your views.

I agree that the cohort of college/early twenties women are the most vocal group of campaigners, and I agree that is for good reason. But like any young adult you would have a tendency to look at older generations and think "they're out of touch, they're dinosaurs, there's no convincing them, we just need to shout loud enough and we'll get the change we want". The pro-life campaigners will focus on that and use it to their advantage, so that older voters will feel like they're not being listened to.

You are forgetting that the 'older' voters you are talking about, those 50 years or over, were once campaigning against this amendment.
They were the 20 & 30 somethings of the 1980s, and they have waited a very long time for this referendum.

TomSweeney

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If i look at that hashtag on twitter all i see are posts from iona-lite accounts.

OK I could be mistaken, I thought there was some handy list that would block all these twitter trolls ...

JDD

bubblypop wrote: »

You are forgetting that the 'older' voters you are talking about, those 50 years or over, were once campaigning against this amendment.
They were the 20 & 30 somethings of the 1980s, and they have waited a very long time for this referendum.

True. But people do tend to get more conservative as they get older. I wager a 25 year old in 1983, who would be 60 now, probably believes "young people" these days are taking too many risks sexually and probably have a different view on unrestricted terminations than they may have done in their youth.