The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

NuMarvel

david75 wrote: »

They don’t seem to be aware of that

My services are available for a very competitive price

david75

Edward M wrote: »

I posted that last night, do you know who is putting in the challenge, it doesent name them in either report, just the solicitors.
Interesting to see Madden and Finnucane, because of that I thought it might actually be SF?

I’ll keep an eye on that.

JDD

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Per the Constitution:
Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann shall have the right to vote at a Referendum.

Next case.

Yep. And the constitution goes on to say that all citizens "unless disqualified by law" are allowed to vote in Dail elections. Citizens who do not ordinarily reside in Ireland are disqualified by law.

What an absolute waste of the High Court's time, when there are so many appeals and criminal cases in a backlog waiting to be heard. Honest to God.

david75

JDD wrote: »

Yep. And the constitution goes on to say that all citizens "unless disqualified by law" are allowed to vote in Dail elections. Citizens who do not ordinarily reside in Ireland are disqualified by law.

What an absolute waste of the High Court's time, when there are so many appeals and criminal cases in a backlog waiting to be heard. Honest to God.

I wonder is it the usual lone whackball has hired them or is it a little more well funded? And how?

.......

This post has been deleted.

splinter65

JDD wrote: »

I'll bite.

I believe a zygote is a human being. My definition of human being is any combination of human cells that results from a female and male reproductive cells bonding together.

I don't believe being scientifically classified as a human being automatically bestows upon you the right to life. So there you go.

JDD wrote: »

I'll bite.

I believe a zygote is a human being. My definition of human being is any combination of human cells that results from a female and male reproductive cells bonding together.

I don't believe being scientifically classified as a human being automatically bestows upon you the right to life. So there you go.

How can you be denied the right to life if you already have a life? The little zygote is doubling and trebling itself from the second it’s created, if you kill it then you are taking its life away, that’s what I believe.
The use of language around the pro repeal argument is fascinating to me.
The obsession with using pedantry and medical terms imo is a desperate attempt to avoid plain facts which I suspect you fear will turn voters off the idea of abortion.
Also “I’ll bite” . If your tired of this thread or bored or irritated with pro life posters offering opinions, why don’t you unfollow the thread for a while and do something else?
You do realize that no matter how many posts either of us make that neither of us are going to change any ones mind.
You seem to be of the opinion that you are manning some kind of pro repeal barricade.
Your not. It’s just a pointless argument between anonymous strangers on a message board.

splinter65

....... wrote: »

So, having made a preposterous post about how abortion has not improved the life of any woman anywhere in the world, a post that attracted numerous rebuttals and posts that pointed out the complete fallacious nonsense in your statement - rather than actually address any of those posts, you simply ignored them all and dive bombed in with another nonsensical sound bite and then ran off again.

Seems to be a modus operandi of the prolifers. I can think of numerous posters who are posting in this manner.

Which numerous rebuttals? Did you give a rebuttal yourself because I didn’t notice it?

.......

This post has been deleted.

robarmstrong

Turn voters off the idea of abortion?

Jesus Christ man everyone knows what abortion does, everyone just has a different understanding of what the procedure accomplishes, look at the bigger picture.

Don't talk to me about denying the right to life when you've the same mindset as those who dumped babies in a mass grave.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Beta Ray Bill

baylah17 wrote: »

Incorrect, none of those involved in the discussions on the 8th were hired by the Red C employee who hand picked members, that happened AFTER the CA had already dealth with the 8th.

Irrelevant, doubt has been cast on the selection process after the fact.
The 7 were caught in a spot check of the selection process..... rrrrrrrright :mad:
What's more likely to have happened is the spot check happened and someone who was supposed to be covering up, dropped the ball.
or
Someone blew the whistle <= Most likely. And everyone knows how we feel about whistle blowers in this country.

JDD wrote: »

I'm not saying your concerns are well founded, but it's not a completely uncommon view.

Presumably though, if the referendum is passed with the view that the legislation in its current form will be enacted, you will believe that it wasn't just a coincidence that assembly, committee and the majority of the population are of the same view?

I am genuinely hoping that the 8th is repealed.
However I believe the bible bashers/pasrish pumps will be out in force to ensure it isn't.
I also believe the referendum result will not match the opinion of the Assembly. (I'd like to be corrected on that, but I doubt I will be)

Pedro K

splinter65 wrote: »

Biologically human life begins at conception. As much as you would like it to be otherwise.
A human being with its own DNA seperate to its parents.
I prefer science to the law.

Pedro K wrote: »

Are you against progestin, IUD, or other methods of contraception whose mechanism stops implantation?

Are you going to answer this question?

captbarnacles

splinter65 wrote: »

How can you be denied the right to life if you already have a life? The little zygote is doubling and trebling itself from the second it’s created, if you kill it then you are taking its life away, that’s what I believe.
The use of language around the pro repeal argument is fascinating to me.
The obsession with using pedantry and medical terms imo is a desperate attempt to avoid plain facts which I suspect you fear will turn voters off the idea of abortion.
Also “I’ll bite” . If your tired of this thread or bored or irritated with pro life posters offering opinions, why don’t you unfollow the thread for a while and do something else?
You do realize that no matter how many posts either of us make that neither of us are going to change any ones mind.
You seem to be of the opinion that you are manning some kind of pro repeal barricade.
Your not. It’s just a pointless argument between anonymous strangers on a message board.

Awww look at the little zygote :pac: are you sure prefer Science to emotion?

Zubeneschamali

grahambo wrote: »

However I believe the bible bashers/pasrish pumps will be out in force to ensure it isn't.

Well, of course, no-one thinks they are going to stay at home. And I don't think this one will be a 62-38% win like SSM.

I'll settle for 50.3/49.7 like Divorce.

nozzferrahhtoo

splinter65 wrote: »

Science has said that life begins at conception.
Do you want to argue that?

I do not think people are arguing that so much as they are arguing what the implications of that are. Which, so far, seems to be NONE.

splinter65 wrote: »

Right now in China 120 boys are born for every 100 girls. That’s a lot of women who aren’t here because of abortion. How is that good for women?

Not sure what you mean here but you appear to be talking about abortion done for gender reasons? Where people abort a fetus because it is female?

I would have two reactions to that.

The first is that this is not a problem of abortion. But a societal issue that a society is viewing women, or having daughters, as somehow inferior.

Blaming abortion for that is to miss the point because it would therefore be the symptom not the disease. The women you speak of are not absent because of abortion. They are absent because of the societal reasons those women or families sought abortion in the first place.

The second is a "so what". I think we need to distinguish between the right to do X, and the reasons people have for doing X. I might question the morality of the latter, but I do not think that impinges on the former.

For example I think everyone should have the right to eat fast food. If you decided you wanted to eat so much of it that you got so far that you could claim disability allowance.... I would question your moral reasons for eating fast food. I would NOT question your right to eat that food however.

splinter65 wrote: »

How can you be denied the right to life if you already have a life?

Ask the animal that provided the last meat based meal in your vicinity. Or the tree that supplied the last piece of paper that passed through your hands. Or the insects killed by the chemicals that treated the last vegetable cooked near you. Or the MILLIONS of lives you may have ended last time you took an antibiotic.

We deny that life has a right to life all the time on our planet. What the argument should be therefore, and precisely the argument you are not moving to make, is given all the entities that do not have a right to life..... what are the attributes upon which to presume to claim any other given entity has it.

The reason the anti choice brigade tend not to want to explore that question is clear. The attributes that result from that introspection are PRECISELY the ones the fetus being aborted lacks. Not just slightly lacks but ENTIRELY lacks, and many of their pre-requisites too.

So the question is simple. In a world where our species takes life ALL THE TIME, where is it you presume to be drawing the line and, more importantly, why.

splinter65 wrote: »

The obsession with using pedantry and medical terms imo is a desperate attempt to avoid plain facts which I suspect you fear will turn voters off the idea of abortion.

That is a bit of spin from you really. The reality is that people tend to use any terms they want until the use of a false term in a given context results in implications that are harmful, untrue, or both.

When people call it a fetus for example they are not avoiding facts, not being pedantic...... rather they are avoiding the risk that implications can be made through the use of language that are entirely unwarranted implications. Implications that the anti choice side want made because it feeds their emotive non points in the absence of making any ACTUAL points.

splinter65 wrote: »

You do realize that no matter how many posts either of us make that neither of us are going to change any ones mind.

Speak for yourself. I have been told on and off thread, in public and in private, that the posts I make have an effect. In fact the only reason I still post on boards is due to those people telling me that. If I had ever gone 2 or 3 months without someone telling me directly my posts have educated them, changed their views, of otherwise deeply affected them...... I would have stopped posting a long time ago.

splinter65 wrote: »

Which numerous rebuttals? Did you give a rebuttal yourself because I didn’t notice it?

I assume mine would be among the ones he was referring to which, as he correctly noted, you decided to entirely ignore. Perhaps you are operating under the dynamic that if you ignore such rebuttals they magically cease to exist, or something like that?

splinter65 wrote: »

turn voters off the idea of abortion.

A weird distortion from you there but the fact is people on BOTH sides of the abortion issue want us to be off the idea of abortion. In that all of us want as few abortions as possible ever happening. Ideally none. We SHOULD be off the idea of abortion.

The difference, despite your us against them rhetoric, lies in the fact we do not think withholding the choice for abortion is the correct way to go about achieving that ideal.

Think of an analogy here. Heart Bypass Surgery. I wish it was never happening. I wish NO ONE ever had to get one. I support initiatives, such as education initiatives and healthy eating lifestyles, that reduce the numbers of people getting one. I am, to use your words, "turned off the idea of heart by pass surgery".

But I recognize not offering them is NOT the way to attain the ideal of no one ever having to have one. And the same is true of abortion.

NuMarvel

grahambo wrote: »

I also believe the referendum result will not match the opinion of the Assembly. (I'd like to be corrected on that, but I doubt I will be)

Do you mean that you don't think the 8th will be repealed, or that the result will be different from the levels of support of the Assembly?

Because if it's the latter, I'd agree with you. I think if the referendum passes, it'll be much closer, 55% for at most. Still that would be clear message, and we've had changes made with far narrower margins *Glances at 1995 divorce referendum*.

Zubeneschamali

captbarnacles wrote: »

Awww look at the little zygote

He has his Mammy's mitochondria!

Beta Ray Bill

NuMarvel wrote: »

Do you mean that you don't think the 8th will be repealed, or that the result will be different from the levels of support of the Assembly?

Because if it's the latter, I'd agree with you. I think if the referendum passes, it'll be much closer, 55% for at most. Still that would be clear message, and we've had changes made with far narrower margins *Glances at 1995 divorce referendum*.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, of course, no-one thinks they are going to stay at home. And I don't think this one will be a 62-38% win like SSM.

To answer both of you.
I think it Repeal will either win or lose with a huge majority to the winning side.
IE: It won't be close.

Also in relation to SSM, I believe the turn out for this referendum will be higher (above 70%)

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'll settle for 50.3/49.7 like Divorce.

Me Too!

splinter65

robarmstrong wrote: »

Turn voters off the idea of abortion?

Jesus Christ man everyone knows what abortion does, everyone just has a different understanding of what the procedure accomplishes, look at the bigger picture.

Don't talk to me about denying the right to life when you've the same mindset as those who dumped babies in a mass grave.

I see you struggling badly to bring God into this. 2/10 . Must try harder graham!

robarmstrong

Would help if you quoted the right post there buddy.

splinter65

Pedro K wrote: »

Are you going to answer this question?

Yes I am against IUDs . My buddy got pregnant twice on an IUD.

splinter65

robarmstrong wrote: »

Would help if you quoted the right post there buddy.

No I quoted the right post. Try to calm down. Your not on the news at one.

robarmstrong

I didn't bring up God so you really aren't making sense.

Calm down? I'm as calm as you are tunnel-visioned mate.

Very.

splinter65

robarmstrong wrote: »

I didn't bring up God so you really aren't making sense.

Calm down? I'm as calm as you are tunnel-visioned mate.

Very.

Jesus Christ you mentioned. The mass graves in Tuam.
Absolute fail.
Won’t work. Try something else.

robarmstrong

Try something else?

Right answer me this.

You're in a burning building, you can save either a toddler or you can save these zygotes. One has to perish, pick one. Explain.

I'll wait while the cogs start turning buddy.

Zubeneschamali

grahambo wrote: »

To answer both of you.
I think it Repeal will either win or lose with a huge majority to the winning side.
IE: It won't be close.

Back in January, polling indicated 56% Yes, 29% No, 15% Don't Know, which would translate on the day to 65-35 Yes.

But I think it will tighten.

JDD

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes I am against IUDs . My buddy got pregnant twice on an IUD.

What about IVF? (second time asking)

robarmstrong

JDD wrote: »

What about IVF? (second time asking)

Don't bother mate, obvious troll is obvious, darts in with an ignorant soundbite, ignores all counters and darts back in with a different soundbite.

Percy Judd

robarmstrong wrote: »

Try something else?

Right answer me this.

You're in a burning building, you can save either a toddler or you can save these zygotes. One has to perish, pick one. Explain.

I'll wait while the cogs start turning buddy.

These analogies are stupid. To show the stupidity, attempt to answer my question:

You're in a burning building with your 1 year old son and 4 year old daughter. One has to perish, pick one. Explain.

Also zygotes only exist before implantation which happens about 6 days after conception. There's no comparison with a 12 week old fetus which the pro abortion side want to legalize starving to death with mifepristone and misoprostol.

robarmstrong

See your analogy falls flat on its face there considering the 1 and 4 year old are born, they've been through birth.

The fetus haven't.

Got more for me?

I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro-choice by the way.

NuMarvel

Percy Judd wrote: »

Also zygotes only exist before implantation which happens about 6 days after conception. There's no comparison with a 12 week old fetus...

There's no comparison between a 12 week old foetus and an adult woman either.

Zubeneschamali

splinter65 wrote: »

My buddy got pregnant twice on an IUD.

Praise the Lord! More cute little zygotes!

Percy Judd

robarmstrong wrote: »

See your analogy falls flat on its face there considering the 1 and 4 year old are born, they've been through birth.

The fetus haven't.

Got more for me?

I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro-choice by the way.

My analogy certainly does not fall on it's face.
So 2 days before a woman gives birth to a full-term baby, has been pregnant over 9 months - can these babies be used in your silly analogies? Or would they need to wait the 2 days to leave the woman to be used in your silly analogies? What point of the pregnancy are they worthy of usage in your silly analogies?

Pro-choice on.. what to have for lunch today? No. Pro choice to have an abortion. Stop hiding behind words in the English language which have nothing to do with abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Percy Judd wrote: »

These analogies are stupid. To show the stupidity, attempt to answer my question: You're in a burning building with your 1 year old son and 4 year old daughter. One has to perish, pick one. Explain.

Depends if you want the ethics answer or the practical answer. The practical answer would always be to select the one that is least likely to be able to save themselves. Then the probability of BOTH surviving does up, even if only by a small amount.

The ethics answer is more in tune with the positions on abortion expressed in the posts you have been dodging and ignoring though. Which is that sentience and consciousness maps on to a capacity to suffer. While both the 1 and 4 year old HAVE the faculty, it could be argued that there is a higher functioning level of it in the older child and their capacity to suffer, however small the difference might be, is higher. Therefore it would be more ethical to prevent suffering in the entity more capable of suffering.

Which maps onto the abortion issue in that moral and ethical concern seems to track with the sentience and consciousness capacity of the entity. The fetus being aborted (almost all of them by week 12 of gestation) has ZERO such capacity because it lacks the faculty in question ENTIRELY.

As such there appears to be no basis upon which to hold any moral and ethical concern for it. Or at least if there is a basis, you have ignored any attempts to have you offer it.

Percy Judd wrote: »

Also zygotes only exist before implantation which happens about 6 days after conception. There's no comparison with a 12 week old fetus

Anything can be compared if you find an attribute, or lack of attribute, upon which to compare them. I can compare Pineapples with squirrels for example under the comparison "Things that are not purple".

The question then becomes, can a comparison of that sort by made that is relevant in a given context. For example the context here is abortion, and whether the fetus has a right to life.

So yes there is a comparison to be made between a zygote and a fetus in that neither of them even remotely holds the faculty of consciousness or sentience.

Percy Judd wrote: »

Stop hiding behind words in the English language which have nothing to do with abortion.

Except language, including the English Language, are contextual constructs. And in a discussion about abortion, and allowing women to have the choice of abortion, the term "pro-choice" has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Less so terms like "pro abortion" as I do not think that generally describes many people on ANY side of the abortion issue.

Percy Judd

NuMarvel wrote: »

There's no comparison between a 12 week old foetus and an adult woman either.

There's no comparison between a 1 year old baby and a 80 year old man.
Likewise a 15 year old girl and a 100 year old woman who has lost her mind.
What's your point?
We have different characteristics as humans (mentally and physically) depending what age we are.
It doesn't justify killing.

nozzferrahhtoo

Percy Judd wrote: »

There's no comparison between a 1 year old baby and a 80 year old man.

Except there are MANY. So not sure you know what you are talking about here at all. There are many points of comparison between them. Some of them relevant to this discussion and some of them not. So....

Percy Judd wrote: »

What's your point?

.... what's yours exactly?

Percy Judd wrote: »

We have different characteristics as humans (mentally and physically) depending what age we are. It doesn't justify killing.

The thing about the word "justify" is it pre-supposes there is something TO justify in the first place. That the action being "justified" is wrong and warrants justification.

As you have failed to offer a single shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to indict morally or ethically the action of terminating a 12 week old fetus.... there is nothing for anyone here TO justify. Least of all to you.

JDD

Oh Percy, you're back! Great! Now you can answer my questions.

You can too Splinter, while your at it. Plus the one on IVF please.

Now please PLEASE answer these questions and don't just ignore them.

I'm married, 41, and have three kids. If I got pregnant again I would have a 60% chance of getting a condition called placenta accretia. It can be fatal in a very small amount of cases, but it could have permanent serious health problems in a larger amount of cases. It can't be diagnosed with any certainty until you are 34 weeks pregnant.

Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances?

Second question. Same scenario but disregard the placenta accretia as a risk. Like most women who have been pregnant (and nearly all who have had multiple pregnancies) I have pelvic floor and abdominal weakness issues. I deal with back and hip pain every day. A fourth pregnancy would exacerbate those issues and I would have to deal with them long after the pregnancy has finished.

Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances?

robarmstrong

Percy Judd wrote: »

My analogy certainly does not fall on it's face.
So 2 days before a woman gives birth to a full-term baby, has been pregnant over 9 months - can these babies be used in your silly analogies? Or would they need to wait the 2 days to leave the woman to be used in your silly analogies? What point of the pregnancy are they worthy of usage in your silly analogies?

Pro-choice on.. what to have for lunch today? No. Pro choice to have an abortion. Stop hiding behind words in the English language which have nothing to do with abortion.

Right let me respectfully pick this apart.

You aren't making sense. The proposed changes are for women to have abortions up to twelve weeks, 2 days before the baby is born still means the baby isn't born.

I'm pro choice for women to have the right to go down the route of legally having an abortion in Ireland. I am not pro-abortion, I do not agree with abortion.

Zubeneschamali

Percy Judd wrote: »

Also zygotes only exist before implantation which happens about 6 days after conception. There's no comparison with a 12 week old fetus

That is exactly the point - why should they have the same rights as a 16 week fetus? 24? A baby an hour before birth? It is ridiculous.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

Percy Judd wrote: »

It doesn't justify killing.

So remind us again, what are you doing to stop abortions? Because keeping the 8th clearly doesn't achieve that aim.

Zubeneschamali

Percy Judd wrote: »

You're in a burning building with your 1 year old son and 4 year old daughter. One has to perish, pick one. Explain.

I grab the nearest and run - faster I'm out the better our chances.

Now you: you are visiting the IVF lab when it catches fire. In the lab, there is a briefcase with 100 zygotes on ice, and the doctor's daughter, a toddler.

Do you save 1 toddler or 100 zygotes?

Make it 1000 zygotes. A million. We all know the answer is to save the child, because zygotes are not children.

robarmstrong

I asked that question and funnily enough I did not get a straight answer.

SusieBlue

The only good thing to come of these hyperbolic posts is that they make me even more certain of my decision to be pro-choice, and more dedicated to the Repeal campaign.

I'm sure the day will come when a large amount of pro-lifers will thank their lucky stars that the 8th was repealed, when its one of their loved ones with their health/life at risk or going through a crisis pregnancy. Not that any of them will admit it out loud, of course.

robarmstrong

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The only good thing to come of these hyperbolic posts is that they make me even more certain of my decision to be pro-choice, and more dedicated to the Repeal campaign.

I'm sure the day will come when a large amount of pro-lifers will thank their lucky stars that the 8th was repealed, when its one of their loved ones with their health/life at risk or going through a crisis pregnancy. Not that any of them will admit it out loud, of course.

Absolutely!! I personally don't understand why people don't realize you can be pro-choice but still against abortion.

Anytime I've said I'm pro-choice it's immediately assumed I'm pro-abortion/all for abortions. I'm absolutely not, I don't agree with abortion whatsoever only in the most extreme circumstances where it's deemed absolutely necessary...

But I see the bigger picture. If this goes through, my daughter won't have to worry about going through what so many women in this women had to go through in order to get an abortion. Nor will her daughters daughters. This vote is not about what my personal beliefs are, this vote is about ensuring the future generations ladies the right to choose what to do with their own bodies.

I don't want women to have abortions. But I don't want my daughter shamed and chased out of her own country by bigots because she doesn't have the right to a legal abortion over here a whole lot more.

Edward M

robarmstrong wrote: »

Absolutely!! I personally don't understand why people don't realize you can be pro-choice but still against abortion.

Anytime I've said I'm pro-choice it's immediately assumed I'm pro-abortion/all for abortions. I'm absolutely not, I don't agree with abortion whatsoever only in the most extreme circumstances where it's deemed absolutely necessary...

But I see the bigger picture. If this goes through, my daughter won't have to worry about going through what so many women in this women had to go through in order to get an abortion. Nor will her daughters daughters. This vote is not about what my personal beliefs are, this vote is about ensuring the future generations ladies the right to choose what to do with their own bodies.

I don't want women to have abortions. But I don't want my daughter shamed and chased out of her own country by bigots because she doesn't have the right to a legal abortion over here a whole lot more.

Same as people think you can't be pro repeal and anti choice perhaps.
More people might be pro repeal if they felt that there was going to be something else other than a 12 week limit put in place perhaps.

Zubeneschamali

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I'm sure the day will come when a large amount of pro-lifers will thank their lucky stars that the 8th was repealed, when its one of their loved ones with their health/life at risk or going through a crisis pregnancy. Not that any of them will admit it out loud, of course.

The thing no-one will admit out loud is that they voted to keep the 8th, just as you never meet anyone who voted against divorce or Same Sex Marriage these days.

No-one bar the hard core of sign-carrying Ionanists will ever have been anti repeal.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

More people might be pro repeal if they felt that there was going to be something else other than a 12 week limit put in place perhaps.

You keep saying that, but what is this magic formula that pro-life people would be OK with? FFA , rape and incest only?

How will the rape exception work? The Citizen's Assembly considered this, and said it is not feasible to prove legally that a rape happened. A contributor in this thread suggested a sort of Rape Inquisition which would grill raped women, with psychologists who would know if they were lying, which sounds like a barrel of laughs.

If you have a workable suggestion, let's hear it.

robarmstrong

Edward M wrote: »

Same as people think you can't be pro repeal and anti choice perhaps.
More people might be pro repeal if they felt that there was going to be something else other than a 12 week limit put in place perhaps.

What would you suggest otherwise? Your first big scan in a maternity hospital (if you aren't in with the Early Pregnancy Unit) is the 12 week scan. Do you think reducing the weeks to let's say 8, would be more suited to those potential pro repealers?

Are you pro choice or pro life? If you're pro life that's fine, I've actually been looking forward to having an actual reasonable discussion with a pro-lifer and I can see sense in what you're saying there.