The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

gctest50

infogiver wrote: »

Why can't you use the term abortion instead of termination ? A termination occurs when the train reaches its destination, when you destroy your unborn baby it's an abortion, surely.

Why can't you use the term fetus

Calhoun

I didn't think it was going to go the way it did, I thought it was going to be a referendum before it got seriously knocked down.

Now to see if the repeal side double down and further alienate the Irish public.

infogiver

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

They're pro choice.

So pro abortion then. I mean if they want abortion to be available then that means pro abortion, yeah?

AtomicHorror

infogiver wrote: »

Why can't you use the term abortion instead of termination ? A termination occurs when the train reaches its destination, when you destroy your unborn baby it's an abortion, surely.

I think the word termination sounds a bit harsher, more violent and and more final than abortion, but I guess that's in the ear of the listener. I use it because it's the word I most often hear used by healthcare professionals, but they're synonyms as long as the context is known.

gctest50

infogiver wrote: »

.................... A termination occurs when the

It's termination of a pregnancy - that's what it is

njs030

infogiver wrote: »

Why can't you use the term abortion instead of termination ? A termination occurs when the train reaches its destination, when you destroy your unborn baby it's an abortion, surely.

Why can't you accept you don't have the right to make decisions about every woman in this country and what they do with their body?
Make choices about yours. Not anyone else's.

Having choices is simply that, a choice, no one will be forced into aborting pregnancies but they also won't be forced into pregnancies.

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

So pro abortion then. I mean if they want abortion to be available then that means pro abortion, yeah?

Well this seems to be a problem the anti choicers have. I dont think simply allowing people the choice will automatically lead to 100% of fetus being aborted. This seems to be something that is a major fear that is instilled in them. IF abortion does become legal no one will be forced into an abortion. Its ya know a choice they have. Rather than being forced into having a baby they may not be able to raise themselves.

pjohnson

notjustsweet wrote: »

Why can't you accept you don't have the right to make decisions about every woman in this country and what they do with their body?
Make choices about yours. Not anyone else's.

Having choices is simply that, a choice, no one will be forced into aborting pregnancies but they also won't be forced into pregnancies.

Damn you to hell taking my words a few seconds before me

RobertKK

The citizens assembly is caught up in the wording of ballot 3, getting a bit messy.

infogiver

gctest50 wrote: »

Why can't you use the term fetus

Because when I was pregnant I never carried a fetus in my womb I carried a baby.
Several friends of friends are pregnant at the moment and they don't say " oh we went to the scan and the fetus was lying on its side" and they don't say " I've been awake all night with the fetus kicking my ribs". If you ever hear anyone using that expression in that context then please let me know.
I can understand when your advocating for the opportunity to kill unborn babies because your pregnancy is inconvenient that it's far more palatable to refer to a "fetus" but it's just not realistic.

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

I'm too lazy for all the mental gymnastics that pro abortion people have to put themselves through in order to persuade themselves that a baby is not a baby.
You must all be exhausted from it

You mean science?

Calhoun

RobertKK wrote: »

The citizens assembly is caught up in the wording of ballot 3, getting a bit messy.

What is ballot 3 ?

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

Because when I was pregnant I never carried a fetus in my womb I carried a baby.
Several friends of friends are pregnant at the moment and they don't say " oh we went to the scan and the fetus was lying on its side" and they don't say " I've been awake all night with the fetus kicking my ribs". If you ever hear anyone using that expression in that context then please let me know.
I can understand when your advocating for the opportunity to kill unborn babies because your pregnancy is inconvenient that it's far more palatable to refer to a "fetus" but it's just not realistic.

Well then you are wrong. You could replace the word "baby" with "Jimmy" that doesnt mean that as a rule all fetus must now be referred to as Jimmy....

conorhal

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Kind of easy to get bent out of shape when you feel the term someone's using to describe you is inaccurate, isn't it.

Well, yes, if it's inaccurate. Anti choice is not an accurate description of any position, it's an attempt to present a reductive general view of somebody, pro choice is not an accurate description of a position either, it's a euphemistic attempt to present a benign view of a very specific act.

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

In relation to the availability of abortion, which is the issue at hand, you are anti choice. That's not an insult, it's a bare fact.

It's a bare fact that I'm anti-a-womans-ability-to-procure-an-abortion-in-most -cases, yes, that is a bare fact.

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

In relation to the same issue, I guess if it makes people happy to call me pro-abortion ('pro-abort' seems to be the preferred term though, not that they mean any insult or disrespect like :rolleyes:) then let them away. I'm more pro-abortion than anti-abortion certainly, but the crux of my position is that I am pro-choice, pro-availability etc.

Well then it is also a bare fact, as you admit, that pro-abortion is a reasonable description of your position.

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

If there was 100% availability of abortion and 0% take up I'd be delighted,

So would I, but it simply wouldn't reflect reality now would it? I'd vote to repeal the 8th tomorrow too if it resulted in no abortions happening.

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

...it's not like I have some abortion quota in mind, some abortion target to meet. The fewer abortions the better, but not under a prohibitive model like we have now because the amount of harm it's doing is abhorrent.

Now that's just strawmanning, who the hell is talking about quota's for abortions? In what bizzaro world is anybody presenting an argument that repealing the 8th will result in a pregnant woman told 'sorry, but you can't continue this pregnancy because we've hit the quota for live births this month'? Is this the alt-universe to the one in which abortion is legal but nobody has one?
(Actually, just typing that hilariously dystopian parody statement I just realised how depressingly it reflects the true state of affairs in abortion liberal China.)

As for the rest, I refuse to condone abortion because of the far greater harm it perpetrates against the fetus and society in general.

Jamiekelly

If you plant a seed in the ground it has the potential to become a tree. If you take said seed out of the ground, you have not cut down a tree.

According to some on this thread you could be accused of burning down a whole forest for digging up a seed.

pjohnson

conorhal wrote: »

Well, yes, if it's inaccurate. Anti choice is not an accurate description of any position, it's an attempt to present a reductive general view of somebody, pro choice is not an accurate description of a position either, it's a euphemistic attempt to present a benign view of a very specific act.



It's a bare fact that I'm anti-a-womans-ability-to-procure-an-abortion-in-most -cases, yes, that is a bare fact.



Well then it is also a bare fact, as you admit, that pro-abortion is a reasonable description of your position.



So would I, but it simply wouldn't reflect reality now would it? I'd vote to repeal the 8th tomorrow too if it resulted in no abortions happening.




Now that's just strawmanning, who the hell is talking about quota's for abortions, is ths a world in which somebody gets pregnant and is told 'sorry, but you can't continue this pregnancy because we've hit the quota this month'?
(Actually, just typing that hilariously dystopian parody statement I just realised how depressingly it reflects the true state of affairs in abortion liberal China.)

As for the rest, I refuse to condone abortion because of the far greater harm it perpetrates against the fetus and society in general.

Hold on you started by saying that you are "anti abortion in most cases". What does that mean?

RobertKK

Complaints by two citizens at the assembly that a lot of lobbying has been going on, and that people were making out people who didn't vote a certain way were somehow hoodwinked.

infogiver

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That the pregnant woman chooses whether she wants to proceed with the pregnancy. What other context could there be?



All of those are things that are universally mandatory if implemented. If you can find me someone who is in favour of mandatory abortions, you may call them pro-abortion and I'll agree with you.



On this we can agree. You are intellectually lazy.

Isn't "chooses not to continue with the pregnancy " just a more palatable politically correct way of saying "chooses to have an abortion "?
If the baby is not a baby but a fetus, bunch of cells, parasite or whatever then why do you have to dress the terminology up like that?
Why are you so reluctant to say "chooses to have an abortion"?
I'm lazy and stupid I think.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

infogiver wrote: »

Because when I was pregnant I never carried a fetus in my womb I carried a baby.
Several friends of friends are pregnant at the moment and they don't say " oh we went to the scan and the fetus was lying on its side" and they don't say " I've been awake all night with the fetus kicking my ribs". If you ever hear anyone using that expression in that context then please let me know.
I can understand when your advocating for the opportunity to kill unborn babies because your pregnancy is inconvenient that it's far more palatable to refer to a "fetus" but it's just not realistic.

Yeah I'm starving right now. Except I'm actually hungry, I've never been starving in my life. I'm freezing! Because it's a wee bit chilly. My feet are killing me. Except they're not, they hurt.

So your actual, real, argument when you're having a discussion that does kind of hinge on scientific and logical accuracy and clear-headedness is 'my friends use this term in informal conversation so f*ck your books and your doctors!'?

It's convenient to say this is the same as this when you don't have much in the way of an argument so you need to make lowest common denominator attempts to emotionally manipulate people.

RobertKK

Calhoun wrote: »

What is ballot 3 ?

Basically give constitutional provisison to allow the Dail legislate
or
Amend the current provision in the constitution.

ZeroThreat

pjohnson wrote: »

You mean science?

The opus dei & other assorted god bothering nuts on these forums such as infogiver probably regard scientists as heretics.

infogiver

pjohnson wrote: »

Well then you are wrong. You could replace the word "baby" with "Jimmy" that doesnt mean that as a rule all fetus must now be referred to as Jimmy....

Actually I'm not wrong. You can spend as long as you like convincing yourself of that but it won't change the biological fact that she was a baby.

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

Isn't "chooses not to continue with the pregnancy " just a more palatable politically correct way of saying "chooses to have an abortion "?
If the baby is not a baby but a fetus, bunch of cells, parasite or whatever then why do you have to dress the terminology up like that?
Why are you so reluctant to say "chooses to have an abortion"?
I'm lazy and stupid I think.

It is using words in their actual proper form.........a woman is refered to as being pregnant when there is a viable embryo/fetus inside her. You cant just start arguing since you dont understand big words.

njs030

infogiver wrote: »

Because when I was pregnant I never carried a fetus in my womb I carried a baby.
Several friends of friends are pregnant at the moment and they don't say " oh we went to the scan and the fetus was lying on its side" and they don't say " I've been awake all night with the fetus kicking my ribs". If you ever hear anyone using that expression in that context then please let me know.
I can understand when your advocating for the opportunity to kill unborn babies because your pregnancy is inconvenient that it's far more palatable to refer to a "fetus" but it's just not realistic.

Of course you carried a fetus! It's a medical term.
You can call your blood golden liquid of Jesus but it's still blood!!!

You "chose" to call your fetus a baby because it was a loved and wanted pregnancy.

Your friends "chose" to call theirs babies for the same reason.

That's why in civilised societies we allow "choice" so people like you have the right to call your pregnancy whatever you like but the woman who isn't so lucky has the right to "choose" as well.

Do you realise how hypocritical you are??

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

Actually I'm not wrong. You can spend as long as you like convincing yourself of that but it won't change the biological fact that she was a baby.

Biologically it was a fetus.........yet you blame others of manipulative language.

conorhal

notjustsweet wrote: »

Why can't you accept you don't have the right to make decisions about every woman in this country and what they do with their body?
Make choices about yours. Not anyone else's.

Having choices is simply that, a choice, no one will be forced into aborting pregnancies but they also won't be forced into pregnancies.

I don't care what you do with your body, I care very much about what you do with the body you carry inside you for nine months, which BTW, *spoiler alert*, is another body entirely with rights enshrined in the constitution. I don't think you should have a life or death choice of that other persons body either. Make a whole host of better choices however and chances are you'll never have to.

Cupcake_Crisis

infogiver wrote: »

So pro abortion then. I mean if they want abortion to be available then that means pro abortion, yeah?

No. So pro choice then. I mean they want a woman to have access to abortion if she CHOOSES so that means pro choice, yeah?

gctest50

infogiver wrote: »

Actually I'm not wrong. You can spend as long as you like convincing yourself of that but it won't change the biological fact that she was a baby.

She was also a fetus

infogiver

ZeroThreat wrote: »

The opus dei & other assorted god bothering nuts on these forums such as infogiver probably regard scientists as heretics.

11 pages it took for the pro abortion patrol to bring God into the equation.
Well done.
It's usually page 4 or 5.
You resisted until now.
It's never the God botherers either, always the atheists.
Amazing.

pjohnson

notjustsweet wrote: »

Of course you carried a fetus! It's a medical term.
You can call your blood golden liquid of Jesus but it's still blood!!!

You "chose" to call your fetus a baby because it was a loved and wanted pregnancy.

Your friends "chose" to call theirs babies for the same reason.

That's why in civilised societies we allow "choice" so people like you have the right to call your pregnancy whatever you like but the woman who isn't so lucky has the right to "choose" as well.

Do you realise how hypocritical you are??

How should we break the news that before that she carried an embryo inside her

infogiver

gctest50 wrote: »

She was also a fetus

She was and is Maria

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

conorhal wrote: »

Now that's just strawmanning, who the hell is talking about quota's for abortions? In what bizzaro world is a pregnant woman told 'sorry, but you can't continue this pregnancy because we've hit the quota this month'? Is this the alt-universe to the one in which abortion is legal but nobody has one?
(Actually, just typing that hilariously dystopian parody statement I just realised how depressingly it reflects the true state of affairs in abortion liberal China.)

As for the rest, I refuse to condone abortion because of the far greater harm it perpetrates against the fetus and society in general.

I'm addressing the point of being described as pro-abortion (which isn't going to annoy me btw). It's not like I have a target number of abortions in mind, or think that as many should happen as possible or that everyone who gets pregnant should have one. Anti choice, imo, is more accurate than pro-abortion.

Might be why you're taking exception to anti choice and I don't really care about pro-abortion. I call myself pro-choice but call me what you want like.

The near total prohibition of abortion in Ireland is causing massive social harm. It's causing people to have riskier abortions. It's causing people to have later term abortions. It's most punitive on the very poor and the very young, and other seriously marginalised groups. Specifically because of the wording of the eighth amendment it's causing horrendous things to happen. What harm does access to abortion cause to society in and of itself? You do realise that some jurisdictions with very liberal access have very low rates of abortion actually occurring? You do realise that the eighth amendment doesn't actually stop Irish women having abortions, or stop abortions occurring in Ireland?

pjohnson

conorhal wrote: »

I don't care what you do with your body, I care very much about what you do with the body you carry inside you for nine months, which BTW, *spoiler alert*, is another body entirely with rights enshrined in the constitution. I don't think you should have a life or death choice of that other persons body either. Make a whole host of better choices however and chances are you'll never have to.

So why do you get authority over her body for 9mths of her life?

AtomicHorror

infogiver wrote: »

Isn't "chooses not to continue with the pregnancy " just a more palatable politically correct way of saying "chooses to have an abortion "?

Isn't that just wordplay to deflect from my reply to your question?

infogiver wrote: »

If the baby is not a baby but a fetus, bunch of cells, parasite or whatever then why do you have to dress the terminology up like that?

Why are you so reluctant to say "chooses to have an abortion"?

I can change it to your wording and the logic of the reply will be exactly the same.

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

She was and is Maria

1) Fertilised egg
2) Embryo
3) Fetus
4) Maria

infogiver

pjohnson wrote: »

How should we break the news that before that she carried an embryo inside her

Good work. Get a schoolyard "na na na na na" gang going so you can all shout down the other voices.
Very mature.

A Little Pony

AtomicHorror wrote: »

infogiver wrote: »

Pro choice is the PC term for being pro abortion.
Pro abortion "lites" don't like the word abortion because it conjures up mental pictures of dead babies ( dead babies are the result of abortions, biologically, mind you), so they refer to "termination of pregnancy", and reframe the expression "pro abortion " as "pro choice" to put a bit of a better spin on it.

**** that's a big-ass straw man.

"Pro-abortion" implies that choice is somehow innately better, when obviously that's not the case. "Pro-choice" more accurately states what the repeal movement want- to allow choice, one way or the other.

If you have a referendum on pro choice abortion, what about one on pro choice murder? Should people not have the choice to murder people?

infogiver

pjohnson wrote: »

1) Fertilised egg
2) Embryo
3) Fetus
4) Maria

Sorry no.
1. Maria
Err ...there's no 2 3 4

Sofiztikated

infogiver wrote: »

She was and is Maria

That's fine.

Maria was an egg, then blastocyst, then an embryo, then a fetus.

One eyed Jack

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think the word termination sounds a bit harsher, more violent and and more final than abortion, but I guess that's in the ear of the listener. I use it because it's the word I most often hear used by healthcare professionals, but they're synonyms as long as the context is known.

That's actually the unfortunate thing about all these euphemisms and couching terms in more fluffly language - it can lead to unintended consequences where a termination is interpreted as a termination of a pregnancy, and that's ok for some, until they realise that termination of a pregnancy, and abortion resulting in the death of the unborn, aren't the same thing.

In the context of the 8th amendment, the term used is 'the unborn', a legal term, so questions about why can't someone refer to it as a foetus are neither here nor there really. I had previously advocated that a pregnant woman should have the right to end her pregnancy in the manner in which she chooses and should not be forced by any law to give birth against her will.

I had one poster then who was adamant that the term 'foetus' be used, suggest that I was a monster for suggesting that I was advocating killing a child. By their own standards, the term foetus is a medical term is that time in the development of human life between 8 weeks development and the time they are born. Up to the point they're born, they're still a foetus.

That's not to mention the number of people who suggest they are 'pro-choice', advocating that it should be a woman's choice and that she should have the right to choose what happens within her own body, etc... but, only up to a certain point in her pregnancy, that they're comfortable with. They never when questioned explain what they think should happen to a woman who would want to terminate her pregnancy in the manner of her choosing after that point.

Pro-choice but only up to a certain point implies an inherently deceptive position in that they really don't think women should be trusted to make choices for themselves at all, but rather that women should only be able to make choices that they're comfortable with. How that position is any different from pro-life/anti-choice/whoever disagrees with them... has never been explained to me by anyone. They always, always prefer to ignore that question. Seems it presents an uncomfortable conundrum for their ideological position.

When we're talking about human life though, I have more interest in people's opinions than their ideological positions.

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

Sorry no.
1. Maria
Err ...there's no 2 3 4

So was it the stork that dropped her in your lap? Sorry if basic science upsets you.

gctest50

pjohnson wrote: »

How should we break the news that before that she carried an embryo inside her

Steady!

infogiver

pjohnson wrote: »

So why do you get authority over her body for 9mths of her life?

Why does she get to have authority over her baby's body for the first 9 months of its life?
Dinner time, evening all.

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

Good work. Get a schoolyard "na na na na na" gang going so you can all shout down the other voices.
Very mature.

No.....its just simple facts. If less time was spent in the schoolyard and more on Leaving Cert science this would be a far easier conversation.

njs030

conorhal wrote: »

I don't care what you do with your body, I care very much about what you do with the body you carry inside you for nine months, which BTW, *spoiler alert*, is another body entirely with rights enshrined in the constitution. I don't think you should have a life or death choice of that other persons body either. Make a whole host of better choices however and chances are you'll never have to.

I'm presuming youre a virgin then.
Anyone who says things like "make better choices" really has no place in this conversation.

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

Why does she get to have authority over her baby's body for the first 9 months of its life?
Dinner time, evening all.

Oh god do you know think an Embryo has a fully functional human body?

c montgomery

Hopefully this country doesn't go down the road of normalizing the destruction on babies.

IMO it's murder.

pjohnson

c montgomery wrote: »

Hopefully this country doesn't go down the road of normalizing the destruction on babies.

IMO it's murder.

No wants to kill babies.

Sofiztikated

c montgomery wrote: »

Hopefully this country doesn't go down the road of normalizing the destruction on babies.

IMO it's murder.

The destruction of babies would be murder.

Good job we're not talking about murdering babies.

Cupcake_Crisis

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

I'm addressing the point of being described as pro-abortion (which isn't going to annoy me btw). It's not like I have a target number of abortions in mind, or think that as many should happen as possible or that everyone who gets pregnant should have one. Anti choice, imo, is more accurate than pro-abortion.

Might be why you're taking exception to anti choice and I don't really care about pro-abortion. I call myself pro-choice but call me what you want like.

The near total prohibition of abortion in Ireland is causing massive social harm. It's causing people to have riskier abortions. It's causing people to have later term abortions. It's most punitive on the very poor and the very young, and other seriously marginalised groups. Specifically because of the wording of the eighth amendment it's causing horrendous things to happen. What harm does access to abortion cause to society in and of itself? You do realise that some jurisdictions with very liberal access have very low rates of abortion actually occurring? You do realise that the eighth amendment doesn't actually stop Irish women having abortions, or stop abortions occurring in Ireland?

Excellent point made in this post.

A good friend of mine needed an abortion (for health reasons, not that it matters. Rather than get an extremely early term abortion at 5 weeks, she had to go on a waiting list for a clinic in England, and save the money for flights and accommodation. She ended up having an abortion at 14 weeks instead. She needed the abortion to protect her health at the time but because of the 8th amendment it was the termination of a 14 week old fetus instead of a 5 week old fetus.

That's all the 8th amendment does, just kicks the ball down the road.