The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

david75

So we’re actually not having a referendum on what people get up to in the bedroom right? Cos that’s nobody else’s business regardless of their age.
Right?

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Charmeleon wrote: »

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

You will have to take it up with someone who's position actually is "It doesn't bother me therefore it must be justified" then, as that does not describe me or my position at all.

Rather my position is based on explaining exactly what does and does not bother me, why, on what basis, and in what contexts. And having done that taking those conclusions to other areas (of which abortion of the fetus is only one of many many many) and applying them.

I have no idea what other atrocities you refer to, but you could give an example and test it to see if I am consistent in my views. In fact, I assumed that was what you WERE doing when asking me about "harvesting their organs" for example. And I think you will find I was indeed consistent in my views.

But I fail to see which atrocities, either past ones that have happened, or future ones you imagining happening, that you think might result from my approach to a sentience bases moral and ethical system. If you find one let me know, I would relish the challange to my ideals.

amdublin

I have seen a few posters in this thread: "I shall be voting for repeal but in the meantime here's a big load of comments and arguments which actually look like I'm on the pro life anti repeal side"

What is that about???

Are they genuine??
Or is this a pro life / Iona type online strategic tactic?

It doesn't feel genuine. Something rings off with some posts.

pilly

amdublin wrote:

Are they genuine?? Or is this a pro life / Iona type online strategic tactic?

It's looking more and more like a tactic to me. Not one that's going to work though. Quite silly really.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

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.

A nice long post which in NO WAY actually replies to anything I just wrote. I am also not sure how old you THINK I am or what relevance my age actually has. But Wibbs is not the only one around here who remembers Basil Brush

I do not care what you lived, or think you lived, through to be honest. The argument from authority fallacy is bad enough without then making that authority yourself. The fact remains you EITHER have arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer for a claim...... or you don't. And in this context it appears you don't. Simple as.

Moaning about who is "bashing" who (even as now you are only imagining that bashing) is not going to change that fact, or deflect people from noticing it. And I repeat: If you want to build a moral system based on fear of your god.... then the first step is to substantiate that that god even exists in the first place.

Until such time as you can do that (as if) then perhaps we should discuss our moral systems, and more relevant to this thread the ethics and morality of abortion, without aspects of your imagination clouding the discourse? Your imaginary friend is no more relevant to the world of morality than my son's.

Charmeleon

amdublin wrote: »

I have seen a few posters in this thread: "I shall be voting for repeal but in the meantime here's a big load of comments and arguments which actually look like I'm on the pro life anti repeal side"

What is that about???

Are they genuine??
Or is this a pro life / Iona type online strategic tactic?

It doesn't feel genuine. Something rings off with some posts.

The computer says no?

It’s a genuine, moderate position, between the hardliner, extreme positions that the foetus has a ‘soul’ and killing it is not justified in any circumstances and the equally extreme position that the unborn are not worthy of any consideration or protection.

I know it seems weird and fake when you hear opinions that don’t match with either of the extreme ideologies but I would think it applies to the majority of people out there. If the extreme positions were correct then it’s either a 50/50 decision on which life to save in an emergency or, there is no moral difference in having three abortions per year as compared with three tooth extractions per year. I don’t think the majority of people agree with either of these extremes. They don’t have a place in the debate trenches though, because ‘if you’re not repeating scripture, you’re just evil’.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Charmeleon

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Some of the Pro-choice positions and arguments are bad though, just like some pro-life arguments and positions are bad, unless you are claiming moral infallibility?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Charmeleon

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well....
“The moment sentience and consciousness comes on line, the moment the fetus therefore has become an actual member of what I believe the set "humanity" actually means...... then I afford it all the love, respect, and moral and ethical concern I would afford to YOU or even to MYSELF or my own children.

Consciousness and Sentience (the core attributes of what it means to be Humanity really) are paramount to me and I am not degrading it at all, but being SPECIFIC about it. And when an entity lacks those things, it is not morally or ethically important to me. At all.”

Zubeneschamali

JDD wrote: »

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.

The 8th referendum was my first chance to vote after turning 18. I voted against it then and I'll vote against it now.

Two similarly minded ladies:

applehunter

The unborn has no fundamental rights under the Constitution other than the right to life, lawyers for the State have told the Supreme Court.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0221/942294-rights-of-the-unborn/

ohnonotgmail

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The 8th referendum was my first chance to vote after turning 18. I voted against it then and I'll vote against it now.

Two similarly minded ladies:

i do like their turn of phrase.

pilly

applehunter wrote: »

The unborn has no fundamental rights under the Constitution other than the right to life, lawyers for the State have told the Supreme Court.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0221/942294-rights-of-the-unborn/

That is good news.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

applehunter wrote: »

The unborn has no fundamental rights under the Constitution other than the right to life, lawyers for the State have told the Supreme Court.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0221/942294-rights-of-the-unborn/

Just so everyone's clear, this is a report from last week about the arguments put forward by legal teams. The Supreme Court hasn't issued its decision yet.

JDD

JDD wrote: »

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.

This really hasn't been my experience with people at all. About anything! If anything, people tend to become less militant as they get older, more likely to see the grey areas.
My mother is 65 & a lot more torelant than you seem to think her generation are. As are all her friends.
Also, in this particular case of repealing the 8th, I have found that most women once they become mothers, are far more likely to agree with repeal. They want to protect themselves & their living children.

B0jangles

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My mother came back from a ladies' golf lunch recently and was delighted and quite surprised to report that when the topic of repealing the 8th came up, everyone at the table was very much in favour of repeal - this which would be about 8-10 women aged from around fifty to late seventies.

robarmstrong

amdublin wrote: »

I have seen a few posters in this thread: "I shall be voting for repeal but in the meantime here's a big load of comments and arguments which actually look like I'm on the pro life anti repeal side"

What is that about???

Are they genuine??
Or is this a pro life / Iona type online strategic tactic?

It doesn't feel genuine. Something rings off with some posts.

They may be shills, they may not be...

I'm voting to repeal. I don't agree with abortion unless only in the most extreme circumstances (threat to mothers life, rape, etc..)..

But my missus is pregnant, she's 5 months pregnant, I've thought of that baby as a little life we made the second we found out we were pregnant (we suffered a late miscarriage back in 2016), but that's just my opinion, my thoughts and my beliefs.

The baby my missus is carrying might be a girl (sure we find out Saturday!!), and if it's a girl, I want her to have the right to choose what to do with her own body. I don't want her to have to suffer what thousands of women before her have suffered by getting on that plane and being chased out of her own country by pro-lifers. I don't want my daughter to feel what they felt, to experience what they experienced and to go through what they unfortunately had to go through. My daughter should not have to be ostracized by our nation.

Am I against abortion? Yeah, but I'm not against the rights of my daughter and the choices she has over her own body, which matter more to me than my own beliefs. If down the line she would have to have an abortion I wouldn't like it, nor would I agree with it, but she's my daughter and I am bound by love to support and care for her regardless of any circumstance she finds herself to be in.

I wouldn't consider myself a shill or anything of the sort in fact I can't really stand that Iona crowd, I know both sides have been a bit mental but some of the stuff their supporters have written is just disgusting..

.......

This post has been deleted.

tonymontanavu

amdublin wrote: »

I have seen a few posters in this thread: "I shall be voting for repeal but in the meantime here's a big load of comments and arguments which actually look like I'm on the pro life anti repeal side"

What is that about???

Are they genuine??
Or is this a pro life / Iona type online strategic tactic?

It doesn't feel genuine. Something rings off with some posts.

Are you referring to me? If so you are mistaken. I am in favour of repealing the 8th amendment but not in agreement on all the issues with people looking for the same outcome.

Zubeneschamali

tonymontanavu wrote: »

I am in favour of repealing the 8th amendment but not in agreement on all the issues with people looking for the same outcome.

So you think it is important to wade in and argue with the people who are voting the same way you are?

Not the people who support the 8th?

Okey-dokey.

Billy86

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You'd be surprised how many children in care are due to this exact circumstance, or ones extremely close to it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Charmeleon wrote: »

Well....

So basically what you are doing is dodging engaging with me about my positions, and instead contriving to build situations where you can take pot shots at them in conversation with others?

If my positions were so "bad" you could rebut them, rather than shady underhand tactics of taking digs like this.

For. Shame.

Secondly as another user pointed out the text from me you have quoted does NOT fit your previous description of "the unborn are not worthy of any consideration or protection at all."

Third, the text from me you quoted is not EVEN a pro-choice argument. If you go back and actually read the context is was an argument against an unsubstantiated assertion that the arguments being discussed on here are throwing concern for humanity our of the discussion. And I was pointing out that this is not only false, but is actually the exact opposite of what is happening.

So not only are you taking cowardly third person pot shots at me, you are strawmanning my position to do so.

For. Absolute. Shame. Some decorum please.

Bannasidhe

JDD wrote: »

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.

I'll take that wager.

'83 was the first time I got to use my vote. I have been waiting a very long time to vote this damn amendment into the confines of history and I applaud the "young people" these days - hope they are more successful than we were.

btw - my 83 year old mother and 86 year old father are also voting to Repeal. One of them voted against it in 83, the other didn't vote. My 60 year old sister didn't get to vote either as she was off living in the UK so she could get a divorce- she'll be voting this time. Also for Repeal.

so - what did I win???

eviltwin

My mum in law is 80. She would have been vocally pro life in the eighties. She's voting to repeal. I found out my mother, a devout Catholic, is also voting to repeal.

I did some canvassing last week and was amazed by the number of elderly people who support choice. I think we stereotype too much when it comes to older people, most of them have kids, grandkids....they want more for them.

volchitsa

I think the difference is that in 1983 all the objections about what might/could/would go wrong if the amendment went through (women being prevented from travelling, women being injured through necessary treatments being delayed or refused etc) were dismissed as OTT scaremongering by prolife people like William Binchy and Patricia Casey.

Since then we've seen those things happen and worse. That is something prolife can ignore but can no longer deny, and that is what has changed for older people who believed Binchy and Casey back then.

tonymontanavu

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So you think it is important to wade in and argue with the people who are voting the same way you are?

Not the people who support the 8th?

Okey-dokey.

Wade in? I think that it is important to discuss the issues objectively regardless of your voting preference. I think it is ignorant and dangerous to dismiss everything anybody says based on a side and I think that it is particularly important that you challenge misinformation provided by the "side" that you are on or it leads to a toxic echo chamber shaping the thoughts of many.

I don't get how any rational person would question my motivation based on my posts here

rainbow kirby

eviltwin wrote: »

My mum in law is 80. She would have been vocally pro life in the eighties. She's voting to repeal. I found out my mother, a devout Catholic, is also voting to repeal.

I did some canvassing last week and was amazed by the number of elderly people who support choice. I think we stereotype too much when it comes to older people, most of them have kids, grandkids....they want more for them.

My grandmother is 76 and voted against the 8th in 1983, she's always been pro choice as is my mother (who dragged herself to the polling station during a HG pregnancy to vote against the 8th). They've seen the effects of the 8th and they don't want it for their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

volchitsa

tonymontanavu wrote: »

Wade in? I think that it is important to discuss the issues objectively regardless of your voting preference. I think it is ignorant and dangerous to dismiss everything anybody says based on a side and I think that it is particularly important that you challenge misinformation provided by the "side" that you are on or it leads to a toxic echo chamber shaping the thoughts of many.

I don't get how any rational person would question my motivation based on my posts here

Mmm. Possibly.

Thing is though, it's not like the "I'm prochoice but..." hasnt been tried before, in various forms.

We had one poster who claimed to be so prochoice he was for a right to abortion up to the moment of birth. Keeping up the pretence gradually became too difficult it seems, and he is now ardently anti-choice. It was kind of obvious long before that though.

Because that's what happens after a while, someone's posts begin to speak for themselves. But when somebody rocks up with barely a dozen posts which argue the anti repeal PoV while claiming be pro repeal, well, you can expect people to think you're going to be another one.

But we shall see. Maybe you're just exceptionally fair minded and a better person than the rest of us here. Pro or anti.

MrPudding

realitykeeper wrote: »

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.

A joyless place would be anywhere where you and your ilk have anything to do with how it is run and what people can and cannot do.

MrP

realitykeeper

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A nice long post which in NO WAY actually replies to anything I just wrote. I am also not sure how old you THINK I am or what relevance my age actually has. But Wibbs is not the only one around here who remembers Basil Brush

I do not care what you lived, or think you lived, through to be honest. The argument from authority fallacy is bad enough without then making that authority yourself. The fact remains you EITHER have arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer for a claim...... or you don't. And in this context it appears you don't. Simple as.

Moaning about who is "bashing" who (even as now you are only imagining that bashing) is not going to change that fact, or deflect people from noticing it. And I repeat: If you want to build a moral system based on fear of your god.... then the first step is to substantiate that that god even exists in the first place.

Until such time as you can do that (as if) then perhaps ...

... but you see that was the purpose of my previous post. Those of us who were brought up with the faith of our fathers, were given the gift of that faith. Those who were brought up not to believe in God, generally don`t. Those without faith, e.g. Communist type people, think they can rely on themselves but as we know, Communists always end up languishing when left to their own devices. Russians learned this lesson in the 20th century which is why they are returning to God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghmvuzvqd6Y

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...we should discuss our moral systems, and more relevant to this thread the ethics and morality of abortion, without aspects of your imagination clouding the discourse? Your imaginary friend is no more relevant to the world of morality than my son's.

The moral systems you refer to are the same as those of the old USSR and misery will be the consequence.

tonymontanavu

volchitsa wrote: »

Mmm. Possibly.

Thing is though, it's not like the "I'm prochoice but..." hasnt been tried before, in various forms.

We had one poster who claimed to be so prochoice he was for a right to abortion up to the moment of birth. Keeping up the pretence gradually became too difficult it seems, and he is now ardently anti-choice. It was kind of obvious long before that though.

Because that's what happens after a while, someone's posts begin to speak for themselves. But when somebody rocks up with barely a dozen posts which argue the anti repeal PoV while claiming be pro repeal, well, you can expect people to think you're going to be another one.

But we shall see. Maybe you're just exceptionally fair minded and a better person than the rest of us here. Pro or anti.

I understand the scepticism but I stated in my first post that I registered to post here.

I made two points; don't reduce the fetus to nothing to aid the argument and the chance to have a choice to abort a pregnancy is what is wanted (not limited to that but it should be stated openly to remove the stigma) .

I can do no more to convince people my motives are genuine than state my support and the fact I feel that the outcome would be fair and reasonable

realitykeeper

nice_guy80 wrote: »

they ignored the indoctrination?

No, the millennials swallowed the indoctrination espoused by mainstream media, hook, line and sinker.

pitifulgod

realitykeeper wrote: »

... but you see that was the purpose of my previous post. Those of us who were brought up with the faith of our fathers, were given the gift of that faith. Those who were brought up not to believe in God, generally don`t. Those without faith, e.g. Communist type people, think they can rely on themselves but as we know, Communists always end up languishing when left to their own devices. Russians learned this lesson in the 20th century which is why they are returning to God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghmvuzvqd6Y



The moral systems you refer to are the same as those of the old USSR and misery will be the consequence.

My family are pretty traditionally Catholic, I'm not religious. Most of my family aren't particularly religious... Strange that. My other who is Catholic and has been Catholic for all 70 years of her life, will be voting to repeal. She's seen the full picture by your logic, she just doesn't favour dictating the lives of others.

Your previous post about the Soviet Union and Ireland secretly being communist is a piece of rubbish that's espoused intermittently. The new morality that you claim to be so awful is simply human decency. The 'me too' movement which you think would have been well received in the Soviet Union, that's completely nonsensical.

In addition to this, while Lenin did bring in progressive aspects such as the right to an abortions. Improved women's rights. Abortions were made illegal under Stalin.... Stalin was literally the darkest portion of Soviet history. It holds no similarity to Irish society. You're never going to end up in a gulag for any viewpoint. I'm guessing you subscribe to the US notion that all forms of socialism is communism...

realitykeeper

volchitsa wrote: »

Did the Irish declare that Ireland had a unique insight into morality ...

Irish liberals, (along with liberals everywhere) seem to be asserting that in a big way in recent times and as I have pointed out, it will end in misery. Trump`s wall will eventually be used to stop American`s from escaping, just as the Berlin wall used to stop those trying to escape east block countries.
[/QUOTE]

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

Irish liberals, (along with liberals everywhere) seem to be asserting that in a big way in recent times and as I have pointed out, it will end in misery. Trump`s wall will eventually be used to stop American`s from escaping, just as the Berlin wall used to stop those trying to escape east block countries.

Sorry but you are constantly making wild predictions across multiple threads and forums who've never come.to fruition so I'm sorry but I can't take you seriously when you make this claim.

volchitsa

realitykeeper wrote: »

Irish liberals, (along with liberals everywhere) seem to be asserting that in a big way in recent times and as I have pointed out, it will end in misery. Trump`s wall will eventually be used to stop American`s from escaping, just as the Berlin wall used to stop those trying to escape east block countries.

What does this have to do with my question??

kylith

realitykeeper wrote: »

... but you see that was the purpose of my previous post. Those of us who were brought up with the faith of our fathers, were given the gift of that faith. Those who were brought up not to believe in God, generally don`t.

Actually, you'll find that most atheist were brought up religious, and were often quite religious in our younger days.

realitykeeper

volchitsa wrote: »

What does this have to do with my question??

Everything. The "new morality" you seem to favour is an epiphany of hell. The tough love of yesteryear was the right way. Abandoning the old morals will have devastating repercussions.

realitykeeper

kylith wrote: »

realitykeeper wrote: »

... but you see that was the purpose of my previous post. Those of us who were brought up with the faith of our fathers, were given the gift of that faith. Those who were brought up not to believe in God, generally don`t.[/url]

Actually, you'll find that most atheist were brought up religious, and were often quite religious in our younger days.

Doing what you are told is not the same as being religious and listening to Catholic bashing on RTE is called being indoctrinated.

pitifulgod

realitykeeper wrote: »

Everything. The "new morality" you seem to favour is an epiphany of hell. The tough love of yesteryear was the right way. Abandoning the old morals will have devastating repercussions.

Have you ever considered writing a novel? You need to figure out how to make your plot more plausible though.

kylith

realitykeeper wrote: »

Everything. The "new morality" you seem to favour is an epiphany of hell. The tough love of yesteryear was the right way. Abandoning the old morals will have devastating repercussions.

Enslaving unmarried women and selling their children was the right way to do it?

dudara

Agree with Kylith, I was most certainly raised as a devout Catholic and still know the difference between my transubstantiation and consubstantiation. I simply stopped believing. I have no dislike or hatred for the Catholic Church, or any religion for that matter. I think it’s wonderful that people value their faith, in the same way that I value my beliefs (or lack thereof in some people’s minds). However, not believing in a faith does not equate to a lack of morals.

For me, this referendum does not impinge on an individual’s rights to live within their beliefs. It does not diminish anyone’s religious beliefs. It gives women the freedom to choose the best option for them, their partner and their family, in accordance with their beliefs and needs. Right now, many women cannot choose at all and that, IMO, is unacceptable.

kylith

realitykeeper wrote: »

Doing what you are told is not the same as being religious and listening to Catholic bashing on RTE is called being indoctrinated.

Studying the bible is what made me an atheist.

But if you want to have that kind of conversation the A&A forum is probably the best place to go as it has nothing to do with the 8th and the need to repeal it.

ForestFire

tonymontanavu wrote: »

I understand the scepticism but I stated in my first post that I registered to post here.

I made two points; don't reduce the fetus to nothing to aid the argument and the chance to have a choice to abort a pregnancy is what is wanted (not limited to that but it should be stated openly to remove the stigma) .

I can do no more to convince people my motives are genuine than state my support and the fact I feel that the outcome would be fair and reasonable

Totally agree

I have openly stated before, I am likley to vote repeal, but I will question mostly this side as I still have many questions.

I also believe we should vote with all the open information of our choice and it's implications.

This means recognizing that we are not merely talking about a clump of cells at 12 weeks. We should not hide or try to hide pictures of 12 week fetus and any other factually information, behind some veil of insensitivity.

This is the essence of what we are voting on, it is a sensitive issue to all of us for different reasons, and we are all adults, so let's not hide it, as that's what it looks like, hide and conceals and dimiss the other side of the debate.

I have no problem with the arguments on sentience, MAP, current option in the UK, womens autonomy, women's health care and past comications and deaths of some woman.

The latest now is we must be shills and trolls for having questions and being openly undecided, which seems like another attempt to say stop posting, or don't listen to them, there must be some hidden agenda. None of this helps.

When I vote I want to ensure I know exactly what I am voting for, and be personnel resonsible for the vote whichever way I choose, so If I decide to ask some hard hitting questions you can ignore, or as some have done, respond with factual information, which is appreciated.

SusieBlue

realitykeeper wrote: »

Everything. The "new morality" you seem to favour is an epiphany of hell. The tough love of yesteryear was the right way. Abandoning the old morals will have devastating repercussions.

The Ireland of yesteryear was a terrifying place.

Women were treated as second class citizens, children were treated appallingly, ‘promiscuous’ women were sentenced to the laundries where their children were robbed from them and sold to the highest bidder.
‘Illigitimate’ children were treated worse than vermin, many of whom ended up in septic tanks and unmarked graves.
Child abuse by the catholic clergy was rampant, poverty was rife, it was still legal to rape your own wife and government assistance for those on the breadline was non existent.
Women couldn’t work as soon as they wed, no contraception, no option to divorce an abusive partner or even just a marriage you no longer wanted to be in.

People made the best of the circumstances they had but it’s certainly not a time period to look back on with rose tinted glasses, nor should we aspire as a society to ever treat our most vulnerable citizens in such a disgusting way.

Bob_Marley

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The Ireland of yesteryear was a terrifying place.

Women were treated as second class citizens, children were treated appallingly, ‘promiscuous’ women were sentenced to the laundries where their children were robbed from them and sold to the highest bidder.
‘Illigitimate’ children were treated worse than vermin, many of whom ended up in septic tanks and unmarked graves.
Child abuse by the catholic clergy was rampant, poverty was rife, it was still legal to rape your own wife and government assistance for those on the breadline was non existent.
Women couldn’t work as soon as they wed, no contraception, no option to divorce an abusive partner or even just a marriage you no longer wanted to be in.

People made the best of the circumstances they had but it’s certainly not a time period to look back on with rose tinted glasses, nor should we aspire as a society to ever treat our most vulnerable citizens in such a disgusting way.

And religious people could start talking about the penal laws.

. .but why does any of this whataboutery make it ok to terminate a human life though ? A person does not have to be religious in any way to respect the equal right to human life. Or are you claiming that they do ?