The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you trust women who are pro repeal?

Why do I have to trust men or women if I don't agree with their views?

This 'trust women' doesn't work as a campaign slogan. Do I trust men - no, why should I trust women?
I trust people I know I can trust whether they are men or women. I don't trust strangers I don't know whatever sex they are.

RobertKK

pitifulgod wrote: »

You're making some pretty unique conclusions while ignoring the majority of my multiple responses to you. :rolleyes:

I am giving my views, not views you want me to give you.

neonsofa

RobertKK wrote: »

She was viewed as being suicidal and the X case was used to take her to England for an abortion which she didn't understand or want.
We are being asked to trust the state in unrestricted abortion, and they have shown they were not capable in the past and there is no evidence they are capable today. How do we know it is not like the bed crisis in the hospitals which has been going on forever...?

How would repealing the 8th or not repealing it have changed the outcome of that particular case? We are being asked to trust our women to make the best decision for themselves, which is what you seem to be saying should have been done in that case. Or is it only when she wants to keep the baby that you extend that courtesy?

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

I am giving my views, not views you want me to give you.

Nah, you're ignoring numerous points and have just concluded that your opinion is more important than that of groups who support survivors of rape.

sean635

I was recently banned from the thread but have just been let back in. I would just like to apologise for whatever posts caused offence before. I discuss the issue frankly beacuse I believe the issue demands it but my intention is never to be demeaning, condescending or disrespectful. I respect everyone's right to their view and I hope that this can continue to be a constructive dialogue on this issue.

Thank you

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

The woman at the centre of the C Case had a problem with people for abortion using her, giving she is against it.

She said "My name – the C-case girl – is brought up on radio and TV all the time these days as if I'm an ad for abortion."

Mrs. Halapannavar's husband was absolutely in favour of a change in the law which ultimately led to his wife's death.

She was not in a postion to comment, because she died.

Because of the 8th Amendment.

Ultimately your position appears to be that it is moral and justified for you to use anyone's history, as long as it supports retaining the 8th, but it is immoral for anoyne else to cite cases in which the 8th caused suffering and death.

RobertKK

pitifulgod wrote: »

Nah, you're ignoring numerous points and have just concluded that your opinion is more important than that of groups who support survivors of rape.

My views are irrelevant, it is people here replying that gives them more relevance than they might deserve.
I don't see myself as anyone special here, and my views are just mine, just as yours are just yours. We can all stop feeling the need to nitpick everything and maybe it would be better for all as no one changes their opinion when people try and back them into a corner with hostile replies.
Read so much people saying to retain people their 'warped' views - not saying you. But it puts a hostility into the debate in the thread, which I feel in the end will end up as an echo chamber for repeal people.

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

Mrs. Halapannavar's husband was absolutely in favour of a change in the law which ultimately led to his wife's death.

She was not in a postion to comment, because she died.

Because of the 8th Amendment.

Ultimately your position appears to be that it is moral and justified for you to use anyone's history, as long as it supports retaining the 8th, but it is immoral for anoyne else to cite cases in which the 8th caused suffering and death.

Show me the state reports which say the 8th caused her death.

Outlaw Pete

mzungu wrote: »

He is right, the likelihood of a diagnosis by week 12 is unlikely as things stand. That does not make him a liar at all. At the 12 week period, results of that test are not going to be 100% reliable.

It's not unlikely as things stand at all. I know someone who had the test. They were 10 weeks pregnant, picked up the kit, had blood taken, dropped it back the same day, had the results in less than a week. Even if you go by the 8 days they state, that just takes you into the 11th week. How anyone could justify calling that an impossibility is beyond me.

On the other hand, pro-life groups equating removal of the 8th with genocide of is right up there on the lie scale, would you not agree?

No, as over 90% of pregnant women that are informed that the baby they're carrying has Down syndrome (in the UK and a few other countries in the Europe) are choosing to have them killed. How is that not a genocide? Would they have to have them killed at birth before anyone cared? What if there was a test to tell race in the first trimester and it came out that 90% of white women were choosing to abort the baby when told it wasn't white? Would that be okay? Or would that be too much for liberals? It's just a bunch of cells though, so what harm.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

So the state wanting to bring in legalised abortion has no relevance to the same state who gave a girl in the care of the state an abortion she didn't want.
Can you tell me what checks and balances the state have put in, or are putting in giving they made this monumental mistake in the past?

Do you think the state will be wheeling pregnant women off to have forced abortions?

sean635

Madscientist30 wrote: »

So suffering doesnt matter to you, just life is the important thing? If you dont mind me asking, where does this belief stem from for you? That any life is more important than the suffering of women? Do you have a wife or daughters?

I have many female friends and family members and I can tell you that I believe all suffering matters. My belief is that the right to life of the unborn child whether sentient or not should not be superseded by the mother on any grounds. I don’t deny that pregnancies are a difficult physical ordeal and not all pregnancies are wanted but it would be a mistake to essentially allow the value of the unborn life to be dictated by someone who has already been born for any reason.

RobertKK

kylith wrote: »

Do you think the state will be wheeling pregnant women off to have forced abortions?

Can you say what the state has done to prevent what happened to that girl who was in state care, from happening again?

January

RobertKK wrote: »

Can you say what the state has done to prevent what happened to that girl who was in state care, from happening again?

Has it happened again? Has a case been brought to court since for a 13 year old girl against her parents wishes being brought to the UK with a social worker for an abortion?

erica74

sean635 wrote: »

I have many female friends and family members and I can tell you that I believe all suffering matters. My belief is that the right to life of the unborn child whether sentient or not should not be superseded by the mother on any grounds. I don’t deny that pregnancies are a difficult physical ordeal and not all pregnancies are wanted but it would be a mistake to essentially allow the value of the unborn life to be dictated by someone who has already been born for any reason.

Why do you believe that?

david75

sean635 wrote: »

I have many female friends and family members and I can tell you that I believe all suffering matters. My belief is that the right to life of the unborn child whether sentient or not should not be superseded by the mother on any grounds. I don’t deny that pregnancies are a difficult physical ordeal and not all pregnancies are wanted but it would be a mistake to essentially allow the value of the unborn life to be dictated by someone who has already been born for any reason.

?? This is the whole point. A woman deciding for herself. For countless reasons she may not be able to have a baby or even carry it full term.

You can’t dictate to her that she must. ‘Cos morals’.

neonsofa

RobertKK wrote: »

Can you say what the state has done to prevent what happened to that girl who was in state care, from happening again?

I'm assuming nothing- and that's while the 8th amendment is still in place. So even if we vote to keep the amendment nothing will change to prevent it happening again. Or again,am I missing something?

RobertKK

January wrote: »

Has it happened again? Has a case been brought to court since for a 13 year old girl against her parents wishes being brought to the UK with a social worker for an abortion?

Not any I can think of, as one wouldn't expect these cases to be common.

On a separate note...
We had the state keep a dead woman alive because she was 16 weeks pregnant which was ridiculous and which looked like a stunt to blame the 8th amendment, and it took the courts to say that the 8th amendment never applied in that case, it was repeal people who tried to use it as a reason to make a point in my opinion, and failed as the woman was dead.

Demonique

sean635 wrote: »

Yes, I do.
The value of the baby’s life and the circumstances of the conception are completely separate issues. Although rape is terrible, the foetus did not force it’self on the woman. Therefore I think it’s as immoral as any other abortion case.

Also I would never force a woman to carry a pregnancy. I would simply prohibit her from killing the baby. I believe it’s the rapist who has forced her to carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want.

So you advocate traumatising women further by forcing them to give birth to rape babies against their will

sean635

david75 wrote: »

?? This is the whole point. A woman deciding for herself. For countless reasons she may not be able to have a baby or even carry it full term.

You can’t dictate to her that she must. ‘Cos morals’.

It comes back to the premise that a foetus has moral worth by virtue of it’s humanity. Aborting the foetus cheats this human being out of life. As a general rule I think it ought to be dictated by law That humans can’t kill other humans.

sean635

erica74 wrote: »

Why do you believe that?

Because a foetus has equivalent moral worth to any other human.

RobertKK

neonsofa wrote: »

I'm assuming nothing- and that's while the 8th amendment is still in place. So even if we vote to keep the amendment nothing will change to prevent it happening again. Or again,am I missing something?

So we should trust politicians with abortion laws, and they may, we don't know, may not have put in safeguards to prevent another c-case.

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

Not any I can think of, as one wouldn't expect these cases to be common.

On a separate note...
We had the state keep a dead woman alive because she was 16 weeks pregnant which was ridiculous and which looked like a stunt to blame the 8th amendment, and it took the courts to say that the 8th amendment never applied in that case, it was repeal people who tried to use it as a reason to make a point in my opinion, and failed as the woman was dead.

A stunt. Wow, what an insult to the family of that woman and her medical team.

sean635

Demonique wrote: »

So you advocate traumatising women further by forcing them to give birth to rape babies against their will

The intention here is not to traumatize the woman but to save the life of the baby. The fact that the woman was raped does not override the moral worth of the child

david75

RobertKK wrote: »

Not any I can think of, as one wouldn't expect these cases to be common.

On a separate note...
We had the state keep a dead woman alive because she was 16 weeks pregnant which was ridiculous and which looked like a stunt to blame the 8th amendment, and it took the courts to say that the 8th amendment never applied in that case, it was repeal people who tried to use it as a reason to make a point in my opinion, and failed as the woman was dead.

Jesus Christ. Using a dead woman as a stunt.

Are you for real??

Martina1991

sean635 wrote:

My belief is that the right to life of the unborn child whether sentient or not should not be superseded by the mother on any grounds.... it would be a mistake to essentially allow the value of the unborn life to be dictated by someone who has already been born for any reason.

Even in cases where continuing the pregnancy means the mother would die?

Or in cases where the foetus will not survive?

January

RobertKK wrote: »

Not any I can think of, as one wouldn't expect these cases to be common.

On a separate note...
We had the state keep a dead woman alive because she was 16 weeks pregnant which was ridiculous and which looked like a stunt to blame the 8th amendment, and it took the courts to say that the 8th amendment never applied in that case, it was repeal people who tried to use it as a reason to make a point in my opinion, and failed as the woman was dead.

I think you're mistaken Robert, the 8th amendment was definitely the reason why this woman was kept on life support. The doctors said it themselves, the court ruled it could be switched off because the baby was not viable. But the 8th was definitely to blame for that case because it caused uncertainty in the medical field as to what to do when there is a pregnancy involved because the right to life of the fetus is equal to the right to life of the mother.

SusieBlue

sean635 wrote: »

It comes back to the premise that a foetus has moral worth by virtue of it’s humanity. Aborting the foetus cheats this human being out of life. As a general rule I think it ought to be dictated by law That humans can’t kill other humans.

But you see, we already have 4k women traveling every year to procure abortions. The 13th amendment specifically allows this to happen.
So Ireland is absolutely not an abortion free country.
And both society and the government do not consider women who exercise their right to travel to be murderers.
We don’t prosecute these women.
It’s written in our constitution that they’re allowed to do this.

Now here’s the next thing: babies miscarried (in wanted pregnancies) pre 24 weeks are not granted death/birth certificates by the government. Babies lost before this point don’t even exist according to the government.

So we have a law that allows women to travel to abort. Neither society nor the government sees these women to be murderers.
We have a government that doesn’t recognize fetuses lost pre 24 weeks as citizens.
Can you not see how that’s contradictory to the 8th amendment?

As an aside I have yet to see a single prolifer campaigning to remove the 13th amendment. Interesting, that.
Almost as if they don’t care unless it happens in their back yard.........

sean635

Martina1991 wrote: »

Even in cases where continuing the pregnancy means the mother would die?

Or in cases where the foetus will not survive?

I support abortion where the mother’s life is threatened as per the legislation passed in 2013.

It is never a 100% certainty that a foetus will not survive birth. Therefore I believe the child must be given every chance to live, even if only for a few minutes.

B0jangles

david75 wrote: »

Jesus Christ. Using a dead woman as a stunt.

Are you for real??

Robert thinks it is moral and just to keep abortion illegal in order to keep the irish birthrate up and so prevent the native irish being outbred by foreigners.

Essentially it's "Women: do your duty, shut your eyes and think of Ireland!"

Nothing is too shameful for our Robert.

SusieBlue

sean635 wrote: »

I support abortion where the mother’s life is threatened as per the legislation passed in 2013.

It is never a 100% certainty that a foetus will not survive birth. Therefore I believe the child must be given every chance to live, even if only for a few minutes.

It’s either a life or it’s not. It doesn’t stop being a life when the mothers life is in danger.
If you support abortion when the life of the mother is threatened, then you support abortion full stop and you should vote to repeal.
You can’t keep arguing about the sacredness of life and the need to protect the unborn and in your next post say it’s ok if the mother might die. You can’t pick and choose.

And as for your second point, that absolutely should not be for a you to decide. As a man you will never carry a non viable pregnancy and you have no idea what that feels like.
The suffering, the pain, the trauma. Shame on you for wanting to inflict more suffering on an already awful situation.
It should be up to a women if she is able to continue a a pregnancy and give birth in Such devastating tragic circumstances.