The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

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

The state's defence was akin to saying something like

'We ban all antibiotics and other sinful modern medicine, and only allow treatment by leeches for moral and religious reasons. Any deaths that result are entirely because the leeches weren't applied properly'

They argued about failings in treatment that was given long after Mrs Halappanavar had begun to miscarry, and tried to gloss over the glaring fact that if she had been legally permitted to have an abortion days earliers (as she requested), none of those circumstances would have arisen.

You know this, I know this, but it doesn't suit your postion to acknowledge this.

sean635

SusieBlue wrote: »

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.........

We cannot control what is legal in other jurisdictions and we cannot prosecute people for crimes they committed in other jurisdictions. We can’t prosecute someone who goes to Brussel’s to smoke weed just as we can’t prosecute someone who goes to England for an abortion.

The government shouldn’t be able to restrict a person from traveling who has not committed a crime as a matter of personal liberty. This doesn’t make what they’re doing any more morally acceptable.

The focus should be on enforcing the law and enforcing a moral standard that killing a foetus is wrong.

david75

sean635 wrote: »

We cannot control what is legal in other jurisdictions and we cannot prosecute people for crimes they committed in other jurisdictions. We can’t prosecute someone who goes to Brussel’s to smoke weed just as we can’t prosecute someone who goes to England for an abortion.

The government shouldn’t be able to restrict a person from traveling who has not committed a crime as a matter of personal liberty. This doesn’t make what they’re doing any more morally acceptable.

The focus should be on enforcing the law and enforcing a moral standard that killing a foetus is wrong.

Do you not understand that imposing your morals on anyone else has no place in this debate? The state doesn’t impose morals. It has laws. We don’t have a statute book on morals.

neonsofa

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

To ask you your own question, what have they done since that case to ensure it won't happen again? While the 8th amendment is still part of our constitution? How has the 8th helped safeguard against it happening again?

SusieBlue

sean635 wrote: »

We cannot control what is legal in other jurisdictions and we cannot prosecute people for crimes they committed in other jurisdictions. We can’t prosecute someone who goes to Brussel’s to smoke weed just as we can’t prosecute someone who goes to England for an abortion.

The government shouldn’t be able to restrict a person from traveling who has not committed a crime as a matter of personal liberty. This doesn’t make what they’re doing any more morally acceptable.

The focus should be on enforcing the law and enforcing a moral standard that killing a foetus is wrong.

The 13th amendment is a bit different though, it came about when we detained a 14 year old suicidal pregnant rape victim to stop her from traveling for abortion.
The public outcry was such that we actually wrote it into our constitution that travel wouldn’t be stopped, aka the 13th amendment.

So not quite the same as traveling to smoke weed.

I find the lack of appetite to repeal the 13th very interesting, I mean from a pro life point of view these women are traveling to cruelly murder Irish citizens.
You would be thinking they would be picketing the airport, staging protests, appealing to TD’s to interfere.......
But they don’t. Because they don’t care. Because so long as it isn’t happening in Ireland they aren’t bothered. Not in my backyard, at its finest. It’s absolutely disgusting.

sean635

SusieBlue wrote: »

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.

if a pregnant woman dies, her baby dies too. In most cases. But if an abortion saves her life then it is better to sacrifice one person for the sake of another than allowing both to die. Therefore it’s morally acceptable as opposed to cases where the woman’s life isn’t threatened.

I assure you, my arguement is not to inflict suffering on the woman but to give her baby every chance to live. Sometimes this means putting the mother in a situation that may be both inconvenient and painful. But I think it’s justified in so far as her life is not threatened.

sean635

SusieBlue wrote: »

The 13th amendment is a bit different though, it came about when we detained a 14 year old suicidal pregnant rape victim to stop her from traveling for abortion.
The public outcry was such that we actually wrote it into our constitution that travel wouldn’t be stopped, aka the 13th amendment.

So not quite the same as traveling to smoke weed.

I find the lack of appetite to repeal the 13th very interesting, I mean from a pro life point of view these women are traveling to cruelly murder Irish citizens.
You would be thinking they would be picketing the airport, staging protests, appealing to TD’s to interfere.......
But they don’t. Because they don’t care. Because so long as it isn’t happening in Ireland they aren’t bothered. Not in my backyard, at its finest. It’s absolutely disgusting.

The 13th is unnecessary in the constitution. The 8th doesn’t restrict right to travel. It was wrong to prevent her from traveling. It is also wrong to prevent someone law abiding from traveling for any reason.

sean635

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.

Sorry but you posted repeatedly that you're against a woman having the right to decide if they can have an abortion or not due to rape and the affects on their health, and then say you support legislation that was ment to allow for this but just in another country?

sean635

david75 wrote: »

Do you not understand that imposing your morals on anyone else has no place in this debate? The state doesn’t impose morals. It has laws. We don’t have a statute book on morals.

Morality is an objective standard of what is right and what is wrong. The law in any good society should be based on a moral standard. To determine if abortion is right or wrong, it must be determined if a foetus is a person and therefore worthy of rights. If that determination is made, the law ought to reflect it and it should be enforced to the fullest extent.

SusieBlue

sean635 wrote: »

if a pregnant woman dies, her baby dies too. In most cases. But if an abortion saves her life then it is better to sacrifice one person for the sake of another than allowing both to die. Therefore it’s morally acceptable as opposed to cases where the woman’s life isn’t threatened.

I assure you, my arguement is not to inflict suffering on the woman but to give her baby every chance to live. Sometimes this means putting the mother in a situation that may be both inconvenient and painful. But I think it’s justified in so far as her life is not threatened.

There are absolutely no words for how selfish and ignorant your post is.

How dare you. Putting the mother in ‘an inconvenient and painful situation?’ You haven’t a clue!!!!!

What you really mean is going through a whole pregnancy knowing the the outcome and giving birth to either a dead or gravely ill child, and watching that child suffer and be in pain and have to bury that child?

Bearing in mind the body will be full of pregnancy hormones, she’ll be producing breast milk while planning a funeral, having to go through 9 months of strangers asking questions and congratulating her when she knew the outcome was bleak?
Can you imagine how traumatic that would be? Have you any compassion?

All cause you, a man on the internet that she has never met, thinks it’s ‘for the best’?
You have some nerve. I pity any woman in your life if that’s how you’d treat them. Absolutely disgusted by that post.

sean635

DubInMeath wrote: »

Sorry but you posted repeatedly that you're against a woman having the right to decide if they can have an abortion or not due to rape and then say you support legislation that was ment to allow for this?

A woman shouldn’t be able to have an abortion on the grounds of rape alone. But if that rape had rendered her suicidal then that would qualify as a threat to life and abortion would be permissible under the 2013 legislation.

SusieBlue

sean635 wrote: »

The 13th is unnecessary in the constitution. The 8th doesn’t restrict right to travel. It was wrong to prevent her from traveling. It is also wrong to prevent someone law abiding from traveling for any reason.

Ah, so we shouldn’t repeal the 13th in case it inconvenienced any ‘law abiding’ citizens. Gotcha.

sean635

sean635 wrote: »

A woman shouldn’t be able to have an abortion on the grounds of rape alone. But if that rape had rendered her suicidal then that would qualify as a threat to life and abortion would be permissible under the 2013 legislation.

Going from personal experience women who are raped feel suicidal at times even if lucky enough not to get pregnant.

kylith

sean635 wrote: »

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

Says who?

sean635

SusieBlue wrote: »

There are absolutely no words for how selfish and ignorant your post is.

How dare you. Putting the mother in ‘an inconvenient and painful situation?’ You haven’t a clue!!!!!

What you really mean is going through a whole pregnancy knowing the the outcome and giving birth to either a dead or gravely ill child, and watching that child suffer and be in pain and have to bury that child?

Bearing in mind the body will be full of pregnancy hormones, she’ll be producing breast milk while planning a funeral, having to go through 9 months of strangers asking questions and congratulating her when she knew the outcome was bleak?
Can you imagine how traumatic that would be? Have you any compassion?

All cause you, a man on the internet that she has never met, thinks it’s ‘for the best’?
You have some nerve. I pity any woman in your life if that’s how you’d treat them. Absolutely disgusted by that post.

I assure you that despite your characterization of me. I am not an immoral person. I believe that every unborn child has potential. That potential may be to breathe air and be in the world for a few minutes alone or it may to grow up and be a doctor or it may be to be nothing more than an inconvenience to it’s mother. But respectfully, I don’t believe any human has the right to predetermine the potential of any unborn child.

erica74

sean635 wrote: »

A woman shouldn’t be able to have an abortion on the grounds of rape alone. But if that rape had rendered her suicidal then that would qualify as a threat to life and abortion would be permissible under the 2013 legislation.

This is actually disgusting.

sean635

SusieBlue wrote: »

Ah, so we shouldn’t repeal the 13th in case it inconvenienced any ‘law abiding’ citizens. Gotcha.

No I’m simply saying the 13th wasn’t necessary to ensure the right to travel for abortion. But it doesn’t hurt to have it for the sake of legal certainty

SusieBlue

sean635 wrote: »

I assure you that despite your characterization of me. I am not an immoral person. I believe that every unborn child has potential. That potential may be to breathe air and be in the world for a few minutes alone or it may to grow up and be a doctor or it may be to be nothing more than an inconvenience to it’s mother. But respectfully, I don’t believe any human has the right to predetermine the potential of any unborn child.

Sean, I don’t give a monkeys about whether you are immoral or not.
I only care about your morals when they restrict my personal liberties. And you voting No will do just that.
You are staring so hard at the uterus you can’t see the woman attached to it.
Have a bit of compassion for the woman birthing that child and the life changing trauma of giving birth to a child who will die shortly after.
Let her decide whether she is strong enough to go through that devastation. Trust her that she knows best.
You have no right to decide what is right for someone you have never met and whose circumstances you won’t have to live tthough.
You won’t be the one who has to live with the grief.

sean635

erica74 wrote: »

This is actually disgusting.

Please tell me how it’s disgusting to hold the life of a child conceived through rape equal to any other child. again I simply believe that unborn children have moral worth

kylith

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.

So you think that rather than being terminated before they can feel any pain profoundly disabled infants with ffa should die gasping, in pain?

sean635

SusieBlue wrote: »

Sean, I don’t give a monkeys about whether you are immoral or not.
I only care about your morals when they restrict my personal liberties. And you voting No will do just that.
You are staring so hard at the uterus you can’t see the woman attached to it.
Have a bit of compassion for the woman birthing that child and the life changing trauma of giving birth to a child who will die shortly after.
Let her decide whether she is strong enough to go through that devastation. Trust her that she knows best.
You have no right to decide what is right for someone you have never met and whose circumstances you won’t have to live tthough.
You won’t be the one who has to live with the grief.

Please. I’m here only for a constructive dialogue. There’s no need for personal remarks. The focus of discussion should be on this question. Is a foetus a person? Once that question is answered, then we can talk about it’s rights and exceptions to it’s rights

SusieBlue

sean635 wrote: »

Please tell me how it’s disgusting to hold the life of a child conceived through rape equal to any other child. again I simply believe that unborn children have moral worth

It’s disgusting to prioritize either over the life and rights of the living, breathing woman carrying said pregnancy.

sean635

sean635 wrote: »

No I’m simply saying the 13th wasn’t necessary to ensure the right to travel for abortion. But it doesn’t hurt to have it for the sake of legal certainty

Would you actually read what your posting and realise your contracting yourself and the facts relating to the case involved and the fact that the prolife movement had the usual ****attack policies that their spouting on about today in relation to the 8th.

SusieBlue

sean635 wrote: »

Please. I’m here only for a constructive dialogue. There’s no need for personal remarks. The focus of discussion should be on this question. Is a foetus a person? Once that question is answered, then we can talk about it’s rights and exceptions to it’s rights

A fetus isn’t a person. It’s a potential person. Until it is viable outside the womb, it’s rights should not supercede those of the woman carrying it.

And voting No does not make you a moral person. I don’t know why your under that impression l, but it doesn’t.

sean635

kylith wrote: »

So you think that rather than being terminated before they can feel any pain profoundly disabled infants with ffa should die gasping, in pain?

What I think is that they have moral worth and should be given every chance to live. Countless women have given birth to child who had so called “fatal foetal abnormalities” that lived long lives. It’s not an exact science predicting these things and I think an unborn child deserves every chance at life.

sean635

SusieBlue wrote: »

A fetus isn’t a person. It’s a potential person. Until it is viable outside the womb, it’s rights should not supercede those of the woman carrying it.

And voting No does not make you a moral person. I don’t know why your under that impression l, but it doesn’t.

How do you define personhood? And how do you define viability?

MilesMorales1

Some people really have incredibly messed up thoughts and priorities in regards to the rights of women and their lives, christ.

erica74

sean635 wrote: »

Please tell me how it’s disgusting to hold the life of a child conceived through rape equal to any other child. again I simply believe that unborn children have moral worth

So when I was a child and was being sexually abused by my brother, you don't think I should have had access to abortion here in Ireland if I needed it?

I don't know if I think about anything else as much as I think about how thankful I am that I never ended up pregnant as a result of the abuse.

sean635

DubInMeath wrote: »

Would you actually read what your posting and realise your contracting yourself and the facts relating to the case involved and the fact that the prolife movement had the usual ****attack policies that their spouting on about today in relation to the 8th.

I don’t believe in scare tactics but facts. And I’ve been 100% intellectualy consistent in all my posts. Please point out where you think I’ve been inconsistent.

kylith

sean635 wrote: »

A woman shouldn’t be able to have an abortion on the grounds of rape alone. But if that rape had rendered her suicidal then that would qualify as a threat to life and abortion would be permissible under the 2013 legislation.

And how would we ascertain that? Would there need to be a board of psychologists and a conviction for the rape, which could take years, or would her word be taken, and how would that differ from abortion on request?